Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

darwinist · Dec 12, 2003, 03:29 pm

A New Theory of Four Basic Human Drives

A recent book on motivation offers a new theory on basic drives in humans: Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices, by Paul R. Lawrence and Nitin Nohria (Jossey Bass, 2001). These two Harvard Business School professors draw evidence for their four-drive theory from evolutionary psychology and Darwin as well as from the social sciences and business. Human beings are driven to seek ways to fulfill all four drives because these drives are the product of the species’ common evolutionary heritage: they increase the ability of our genes to survive. They make a good case for the following basic drives:

The drive to acquire objects and experiences that improve our status relative to others
The drive to bond with others in long-term relationships of mutual care and commitment
The drive to learn and to make sense of the world and of ourselves
The drive to defend ourselves, our loved ones, our beliefs, and our resources from harm
Each drive also has a counter-productive side. For example, when the drive to acquire becomes excessively competitive it diminishes respect for others; when the drive to defend one’s current thinking becomes excessive it diminishes the drive to learn new perspectives.

These four drives exist in each of us, and determine the choices we make. In some people, one drive will be more developed than others, creating an imbalance. In some jobs, some drives will be emphasized more than others. The authors suggest that organizational life can be enhanced when attention is paid to all four drives.

The independence of these drives is what forces people to think and to choose, because not all drives can be met at all times. These four drives are what make people distinctly human- complex beings with complex motives and complex choices.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now me and another poster. Have been Ping Ponging this issue back and forth. Here are some quotes:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Impenitent

greed is not a syndrome, it is the basis for LIFE... life demands greed... life is always wanting to sustain itself and sustain itself better and better... that is human life, not a social system...

stealing away "wealth" only builds resentement and causes more problems...

the percentage is much smaller than that worldwide...

no, your "solution" ignores a basic human drive "greed" and blames society for it... if you want to eliminate human drives like greed, why not erase hate and envy as well?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
G. Adams

The conditions of our current way of living demand greed, i other words our capitalist system requires you to be greedy to survive. If you change our mode of living to a communist or socialist one, then greed is not neccesary for life. Of course you could argue you need to have a greedless society before you start communism or it will fail.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Here is a very basic list of what i see the 4 drives as:

1) Success
2) Love
3) Understanding
4) Survivial

Impenitent see the first one as 'Greed'. But gerenally agrees to the rest.

So is 'Greed' a basic Human drive?

Or is 'Greed' created by social conditions?

Have your say, about this or anything else posted here. I shall also post a few more of my other comments, spread around this debate group. But first i have to find them.

Waychel · Dec 12, 2003, 03:49 pm

IMO greed is a basic human drive because it is an aspect of competitiveness as well as self-interest. As children, we throw temper tantrums to get things and always want all the cookies in the jar instead of one. Our parents are who dicipline us and teach us values such as sharing. So in actuality, the perspective that greed is a bad trait of the human condition that should be eliminated is one that is impressed upon us by society through our philosophy. I do not believe that we are ignorant of it and that it is impressed upon us by the capitalist conditions as others do.

I also believe that list can be compressed from 4 traits into one:

1) Success - To succeed is to survive
2) Love - Love is to reproduce, which is to ensure the survival of the species
3) Understanding - Better understanding your environment is to better adapt to and survive in it
4) Survivial - They all come to this

Aeolus · Dec 12, 2003, 04:27 pm

Well, that would make sense. We are always looking for the next desire because greed drives us to achieve all we desire. So, gluttony, greed ensues in this quest to quench that insatiable thirst.

darwinist · Dec 13, 2003, 06:37 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Yassen

Dear darwinist & Impenitent

A very rich man I know told me once “ Greed Begets Greed” as he handed me $500 cash for closing a $500,000 deal for him. This man, who I will not mention his name lied, cheated, stole millions while manipulating the system. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Darwinist

Our mordern day society creates greed. Greed is feed by fear.

People are only mean when they feel threatened.

When you feel threatened you only look out for yourself. You become selfish.

Thats what the current economy does.

People who have jobs feel threatened.

Because there worried about losing those jobs.

So money becomes the most important thing. Driving everyone to be greedy. To grab as much as possible, as quick as possible. More is good, more is good.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waychel

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
IMO greed is a basic human drive because it is an aspect of competitiveness as well as self-interest. As children, we throw temper tantrums to get things and always want all the cookies in the jar instead of one. Our parents are who dicipline us and teach us values such as sharing. So in actuality, the perspective that greed is a bad trait of the human condition that should be eliminated is one that is impressed upon us by society through our philosophy. I do not believe that we are ignorant of it and that it is impressed upon us by the capitalist conditions as others do.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Intresting. I can relate to this situation.

But would the same thing happen, to every single child?

The basis of 'Greed' here. Can be affected by many things. What if the child was really hungry? What if the child was full?

Yes we do get taught things by our parents. But not things that we would not learn without them. Think about it. If a child was hungry and ate all the 'cookies'. It might become very sick. It would learn, that it could not eat all the 'cookies'. Or that 'fire' burns, if you put your hand in it. Because if you put your hand into the 'fire' you are going to learn very quickly, that it indeed does burn.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I also believe that list can be compressed from 4 traits into one:

1) Success - To succeed is to survive
2) Love - Love is to reproduce, which is to ensure the survival of the species
3) Understanding - Better understanding your environment is to better adapt to and survive in it
4) Survivial - They all come to this <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes i agree. Survivial is the basic underlining drive.

That is why i believe Capitalist conditions, help create greed. When your survivial is threaten. In the capitalist system, that all boils down to money. Then one of the best ways to survive. Is to become 'greedy' and 'selfish'. The most important thing, becomes 'money'. Because " Money = Survivial ".
The more you have in the Capitalist system, the more Successful you are. See number one in the above list. The more Successful you are, the more likely you will obtain Love (2). The better understanding (3) that you have of the capitlalist system. The more you can make, use and abuse.

Waychel · Dec 13, 2003, 03:24 pm

I do not think that children would learn on their own to limit greed, because greed in children is more than just consumption. We teach our children to play fairly with others and share toys with them. We teach our children not to steal things or lie to get what they want. Infact, I would say that greed stays with many children until they mature past the point of rebellion. More or less, acting out in one's own self-interest when it greatly inconveniances others - without any care or consideration to this at all - is greedy. Teenagers are guilty of this on numerous occasions, and they are not "children".

The bottom line is that without dicipline at a young age, we do not learn to control ourselves or these primal traits. IMO, this is why many children grow up causing fights; go into HS and participate in gangs and juvenile delinquincy; and eventually resort to more serious crimes as they grow older.

darwinist · Dec 14, 2003, 06:17 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I do not think that children would learn on their own to limit greed, because greed in children is more than just consumption. We teach our children to play fairly with others and share toys with them. We teach our children not to steal things or lie to get what they want. Infact, I would say that greed stays with many children until they mature past the point of rebellion. More or less, acting out in one's own self-interest when it greatly inconveniances others - without any care or consideration to this at all - is greedy. Teenagers are guilty of this on numerous occasions, and they are not "children".<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Interesting points. You have made more progress in 'convincing' me. Then *ENT's rants. But i am not totally convinced.

In Sociobiology, Which this whole issue stems from. Even the leading protagonist goes on to say:-

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
On paper, the critics were sometimes just as extreme. Fifteen cosigners of a statement in the New York Review of Books dismissed Wilson’s book as the latest attempt to reinvigorate theories which in the past “provided an important basis for the enactment of sterilization laws and . . . the eugenics policies which led to the establishment of gas chambers in Nazi Germany.” By the time Wilson deplored “this ugly, irresponsible, and totally false accusation,” he surely had the vast majority of scientists on his side. He was accused of being a “determinist,” but nowhere had he said that human behavior was determined by the genes. “In rough terms,” he explained, “I see maybe 10 percent of human behavior as genetic and 90 percent as environmental.”<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So even if 'greed' is a basic underlining trait. Then it has been encouraged more under our current culture.

Also remember, we still have no clue as to the workings of the subconscious. They is speculation that at an age in the womb. We all become receiptive to our enviroment. Perhaps even beginning to learn our 'ways' before we are even born.

More so, that the point in our lives. When we are the most receiptive, is between the ages:- of being born and 2 years old. This is when we 'learn' the most. By the time we become 'teenagers' the "damage" has long since been done.

white rice · Dec 14, 2003, 08:26 am

I don't remember anything when I was 2 or before. Doesn't mean I didn't learn anything, but I think increased receptivity in behavior expands years beyond that. I don't think orphan infants have their fates sealed before they meet their adoptive parents.

Greed in its purest form is attaining a need or want at the expense of everything else. That would be counterproductive in a social species that most often requires cooperation to survive. It's been shown that some monkey groups recognize the value of fairness. That study could play a larger understanding of human evolution. It looks like there is a human dynamic between self interest and percieved equity in groups that makes it an environmental trait for those qualities to emerge in each person.

The Native American culture taught a balance of give and take with themselves and nature. There was greed in them, but it was tied to increasing their prospects for survival in the near future. In hunting/agrarian tribes, killing more buffalo than needed would give them an easier time to face the winter, but they knew that killing too many would be suicidal or would force them to relocate. Success to them could be attained by their role in the community or by their personal feats of endurance and skill, factors that didn't have to be motivated by greed.

Waychel · Dec 14, 2003, 02:36 pm

I was not claiming that human behavior is genetic entirely, if this is what you interpreted me as saying. My point was that as children, we are raised due to society's standards to either turn away entirely from our worst perceived primitive traits or learn to control them.

Greed is, in my opinion, just another word for absolute self-concern in relation to our most primitive drive of self-preservation. To succeed in one's environment socially and economically is to survive, and competitiveness is an aspect of this. Greed however, is another thing entirely.

What would be an example of greed is if one were to succeed in this way by cheating or acting unfairly towards others, by acting outside the bounds of society's laws and the courtesy of other people, while showing absolutely no consideration to having acted in this way at all to succeed. But we do not perceive this as a "bad" thing unless it is first impressed upon us at a young age.

An example of this would be a parent taking their 3-year-old into someone else's home. When a young child such as this comes accross something they want, they will take it. The parent has to take the item away from the child and get the message accross to them that taking whatever they want is wrong. We are taught at a very young age to control ourselves because this is how we will survive in a social group of standards and laws.

Animals such as wolves also learn this with their pack structure. But just as these animals, human beings too are known to operate on their own without a social group or pack. This is where in nature, greed is a useful trait to have. Absolute, selfish disregard is how any animal survives outside of its pack, herd or social group.

darwinist · Dec 14, 2003, 05:35 pm

white rice

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I don't remember anything when I was 2 or before. Doesn't mean I didn't learn anything, but I think increased receptivity in behavior expands years beyond that. I don't think orphan infants have their fates sealed before they meet their adoptive parents.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Me neither. That is why i mentioned the subconscious. For it is a fact, that we did learn somethings during this time. Learning to talk and walk are the two best examples that come to mind. The reason i mentioned the subconscious. Is that in some circles. It is thought, to be an indirect memory 'device'. It also been mentioned, that the subconscious protects us.

I did not mean to imply, that anyone's fate where sealed. Only that by the time we become 'teenages'. That most of society has done a good job, of moulding our thoughts, personality and actions. Due to the environment, each and everyone of us has been brought up in. Each environment unique, due to our parents. How they have been moulded. etc... But even as you get older. You fate, i believe is never truely sealed.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Greed in its purest form is attaining a need or want at the expense of everything else. That would be counterproductive in a social species that most often requires cooperation to survive. It's been shown tha<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Thanks for the link. I going to check it out. I believe, that to understand who we truely are. You must understand, where you have come from.

Waychel

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I was not claiming that human behavior is genetic entirely, if this is what you interpreted me as saying. My point was that as children, we are raised due to society's standards to either turn away entirely from our worst perceived primitive traits or learn to control them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I did not mean to imply that you where claiming this. The reason i posted this. Is that Wilson is the most famous person that believes in Sociobiology. This is the whole aspect of the 4 drives mentioned. As i am not totally convinced that 'greed' is a basic trait. That it is more a bye product of these drives. So i posted this quote. As a sort of fail safe. Let us assume, for the moment. That 'greed' is a basic trait. Even Wilson says, that the basic drive is only 10% of our responsible actions. Our environment is responsible for 90%. Our environment being an Capitalist Represenative Society. Which promotes 'greed' as the best means of survivial. When humans are 'fighting' for survivial, they become self involed. Selfish and greedy creatures. Also this takes on a more ominous state of affairs. If we are 'fighting' for our survivial. Then we are not thinking about 'our' situation. In simple terms, this means. If we are 'fighting' each other. We can not group together, to fight the system. Have you noticed, how western society. Has become more 'selfish' and 'apathetic'. During the last 30 years. The system 'crushing' any rebellion. The 'rockers', 'mods', 'hippies' and 'punks'. All gone. Corrupting all those, who come into power. By working for the system. You become the system. ( Now i have wander off topic, by a mile... :) )

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Greed is, in my opinion, just another word for absolute self-concern in relation to our most primitive drive of self-preservation. To succeed in one's environment socially and economically is to survive, and competitiveness is an aspect of this. Greed however, is another thing entirely.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I think 'greed' is an excessive desire for something. That why i think it is a bye product of the survivial instict. For example, if threaten by a 'food shortage'. One might become 'greedy', horde all the food. Fight anyone for the food. In order to survive.

But then you also have to consider the following:-

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
A peculiar omission from the sociobiologists’ subdivisions of human nature is the faculty of reason itself. Stephen Jay Gould indirectly drew attention to this in his criticism of a claim that Eskimo behavior sometimes validates altruist genes. When food is scarce and an Eskimo family must move, grandparents sometimes stay behind to die rather than slow down the entire family. Here, genes are redundant, Gould points out. Old Eskimos can simply figure it out for themselves, and may be given an incentive to stay behind in families where “sacrifice is celebrated in song and story; aged grandparents who stay behind become the greatest heroes of the clan.” Once reason is admitted as a characteristic of human nature—and in truth it is the characteristic, along with freedom of the will—it can be shown to do the work imputed to phantom genes in almost any example that sociobiologists want to bring up.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The greater sacrifice. Flying in the face of 'greed' and the 'survivial instict'. Sacrifice yourself, for your gene's being passed on. Giving your kin a better chance of survivial. Pointing at a possible, underlining social drive.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
What would be an example of greed is if one were to succeed in this way by cheating or acting unfairly towards others, by acting outside the bounds of society's laws and the courtesy of other people, while showing absolutely no consideration to having acted in this way at all to succeed. But we do not perceive this as a "bad" thing unless it is first impressed upon us at a young age.

An example of this would be a parent taking their 3-year-old into someone else's home. When a young child such as this comes accross something they want, they will take it. The parent has to take the item away from the child and get the message accross to them that taking whatever they want is wrong. We are taught at a very young age to control ourselves because this is how we will survive in a social group of standards and laws.

Animals such as wolves also learn this with their pack structure. But just as these animals, human beings too are known to operate on their own without a social group or pack. This is where in nature, greed is a useful trait to have. Absolute, selfish disregard is how any animal survives outside of its pack, herd or social group.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Interesting. I can relate. But have you thought, how society affects us in other ways. The duel affect of laws. How the rich, can seem to do what they like. The poor being sent to prison. For example, When 'Robbie Williams', talks about his drug habit. Seems to play the bad boy. This is accepted as 'good olde robbie'. But when Joe Average, does drugs. 3-5 years for him. etc...

Waychel · Dec 14, 2003, 06:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Let us assume, for the moment. That 'greed' is a basic trait. Even Wilson says, that the basic drive is only 10% of our responsible actions. Our environment is responsible for 90%. Our environment being an Capitalist Represenative Society. Which promotes 'greed' as the best means of survivial. When humans are 'fighting' for survivial, they become self involed. Selfish and greedy creatures.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Of course we cannot say that a person is governed by instinct because we, as human beings, are no longer just animals; we have the ability to reason and think for ourselves. When a man murders another, he is held accountable for those actions and rightly so. However, this doesn't mean that this primitive part of him had nothing to do with it. To offer an analogy, this could be seen as dropping a pebble into a lake. The pebble initially only created one ripple, but that one ripple resulted in many others. I believe the same account and consideration should be taken in regatds to social impact, but I believe these both affect an individual equally. I do not think 90% of the responsibility of an individual's actions can be attributed to society - only themselves. Society and primitive nature are only factors.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I think 'greed' is an excessive desire for something. That why i think it is a bye product of the survivial instict. For example, if threaten by a 'food shortage'. One might become 'greedy', horde all the food. Fight anyone for the food. In order to survive.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is partly what I was trying to say.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The greater sacrifice. Flying in the face of 'greed' and the 'survivial instict'. Sacrifice yourself, for your gene's being passed on. Giving your kin a better chance of survivial. Pointing at a possible, underlining social drive.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is true, but I believe it is also a mistake to hold family in the same regard as social drive. Assuring the success of one's family is assuring the success of one's own genes. This is not an obligation to one's social group but an obligation to one's drive of propagation. Keep in mind that lions and many other animals for the same reason will kill the offspring of others in their own species to insure that their own offspring encounter less competition as they mature. Equally, in many extreme circumstances, individuals often put more value upon the lives of their family than they do upon the hundreds or thousands that make up their social group.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Interesting. I can relate. But have you thought, how society affects us in other ways. The duel affect of laws. How the rich, can seem to do what they like. The poor being sent to prison. For example, When 'Robbie Williams', talks about his drug habit. Seems to play the bad boy. This is accepted as 'good olde robbie'. But when Joe Average, does drugs. 3-5 years for him. etc... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I believe this is a matter of sociology rather than genetics/human nature so to speak. As for what I think of it, in our society we both conciously and unconciously judge others by how they have succeeded in life economically. We look at someone who is wealthier than us as having outdone us. This also gives us the impression that they are somehow ABOVE us. I believe that this is changing however. Law enforcement over the years has become bolder in cracking down on Hollywood and other "celebrities", such as Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson.

Impenitent · Dec 15, 2003, 01:19 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
...

The Native American culture taught a balance of give and take with themselves and nature. There was greed in them, but it was tied to increasing their prospects for survival in the near future. In hunting/agrarian tribes, killing more buffalo than needed would give them an easier time to face the winter, but they knew that killing too many would be suicidal or would force them to relocate. Success to them could be attained by their role in the community or by their personal feats of endurance and skill, factors that didn't have to be motivated by greed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

"Native American" culture?!? which tribe?!? all of them?!? compare the Macaw and the Apache with the Sioux and the Cherokee... to claim that "Native American" culture anything as a generality is ignorance... there were and are over 300 distinct "Native American" cultures... you are using a perverted view of "Native American" culture that some WHITE ENVIRONMENTALIST has invented to help sell his lies... there is no "Native American" culture... and in the future, please call us "Indians" as the ignorant Columbus did... "Native American" is an insult because ANY idiot born on this continent is a "Native American"

Waychel · Dec 15, 2003, 03:45 am

Geez Impenitent calm down. >_>;

This whole discussion is extremely generalizing in the first place...

White rice was just making a point through use of a general comparison.

darwinist · Dec 15, 2003, 12:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Of course we cannot say that a person is governed by instinct because we, as human beings, are no longer just animals; we have the ability to reason and think for ourselves. When a man murders another, he is held accountable for those actions and rightly so. However, this doesn't mean that this primitive part of him had nothing to do with it. To offer an analogy, this could be seen as dropping a pebble into a lake. The pebble initially only created one ripple, but that one ripple resulted in many others. I believe the same account and consideration should be taken in regatds to social impact, but I believe these both affect an individual equally. I do not think 90% of the responsibility of an individual's actions can be attributed to society - only themselves. Society and primitive nature are only factors.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

True. Our growth is 10% instict and 90% enviromental. But i think murder is different form killing. What i mean is, anyone is capable of killing to survive. But i think only a few are capable of murder. Of course in depends on the motive. But i think you see my point. I did not mean to imply that the 90% was society's responsilility. Only that, that 90% is the enviromental impact upon any one person. Therefore helping to mould who that person becomes. I comes to the individual actions, are choosen. We all decide what we are going to do. According to our 'mould'. But i can not say all my choices where the best ones. I have made mistakes. I have done well.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
This is true, but I believe it is also a mistake to hold family in the same regard as social drive. Assuring the success of one's family is assuring the success of one's own genes. This is not an obligation to one's social group but an obligation to one's drive of propagation. Keep in mind that lions and many other animals for the same reason will kill the offspring of others in their own species to insure that their own offspring encounter less competition as they mature. Equally, in many extreme circumstances, individuals often put more value upon the lives of their family than they do upon the hundreds or thousands that make up their social group.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is one of the examples i found. Pointing at a possible underlinning social drive. But there are others. Perhaps not reaching the same degree as this. But for example. Firemen, have been known to 'risk' they lives to rescue 'strangers'. You could argue, that this is there job. But in some cases, it is too the point. Of even there collegue's. Say that they are a true 'hero'. That it went against protocol. etc. I know this is highly conditional. But this one person is risking their survivial for a complete stranger.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I believe this is a matter of sociology rather than genetics/human nature so to speak. As for what I think of it, in our society we both conciously and unconciously judge others by how they have succeeded in life economically. We look at someone who is wealthier than us as having outdone us. This also gives us the impression that they are somehow ABOVE us. I believe that this is changing however. Law enforcement over the years has become bolder in cracking down on Hollywood and other "celebrities", such as Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, i am encorage by these forms of actons. It shows, rightly. That no one is above the law. But the next thing, in the states. That has to change. Is how the IRS deals with tax. In this situtation, you are guilty. Until you prove yourself otherwise. If your rich, this is not a problem. You can hire a tax lawyer. However if your poor. It is best to come up with the money now. Then hope later on that the truth comes out.

Which leads me to a wander off topic. But have you noticed. When ever you owe any government money. ie- tax. You have to pay 'today'. But when they owe you money. You have to fill out forms in triplicate. Get your great grand father to sign it in blood. Run backwards and fowards pulling your hair out. Then my be 6-10 weeks later. You may see some money from them...

BrightKID · Nov 16, 2004, 09:07 pm

If Greed is what runs society then your in the wrong debate. Evolutionary psychology is based on the recognition that the human brain consists of a large collection of functionally specialized computational devices that evolved to solve the adaptive problems regularly encountered by our hunter-gatherer ancestors". This is about who we are and how we learn.

BrightKID · Nov 16, 2004, 09:09 pm

If Greed is what runs society then your in the wrong debate. According to the Center for Evolutionary psychology "evolutionary psychology is based on the recognition that the human brain consists of a large collection of functionally specialized computational devices that evolved to solve the adaptive problems regularly encountered by our hunter-gatherer ancestors". This is about who we are and how we learn.

Suburbanite · Nov 17, 2004, 04:56 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Waychel,

2) Love - Love is to reproduce, which is to ensure the survival of the species

The reproduction argument is always lost on me. Homosexuals seek love and sex outside of reproduction. The emotion of love is something we do experience, so it isn't just "to reproduce" because love exists outside of sex, and sex outside of love. I think love is a social attraction designed to complete us as people. I don't mean this in the sense of we are only half a human, but in that love allows you to exist freely with one or more people completely unrestrained when everyone else you meet you have to drop some of your poorer traits and stretch better ones.

rez · Nov 18, 2004, 05:39 pm

Nice a "evolutionary psychology" debate..which is also known as "Sociobiology" so both are the exact same thing..(it used to be called Sociobiology)

I would like to set a couple thoughts here first.

What happens to animals when they are placed in a cage? Well Animals act totally different then how they would in the free environment.

Now same with Humans.....we humans have placed a cage around ourseleves....ie cities, jobs etc....

The other point I would like to bring up is "status"
which status are you? High, middle, or low? and how to you react to this status?

Does everybody like to be the best at something? Best forum poster? Best at their job? Best at their school work? Best at forming opinions? Best at being social? Best at being un social? These are all status seeking "sub-groups" which brings me to GROUPS -- who are in these? Well higher up people (the rich)

The basic idea is - if one fails at high status group, one will form a sub-group and be good at that - and so on.

Everybody wants an identity! Opinions, Tattoos, job description, interests are all forms of identity....its our basic biological instinct!

Another term that you guys are touching on is "Socialization" this term consists of Media, Education, Peers, and most important family. Socialization refers to social processes through which an individual becomes incorporated into a social group by learning the group’s culture and his or her roles in that group. It is largely through this process that the individual’s concept of self is formed. Socialization also enables us to form social identities and the awareness of what goes on in our minds. A lot of Sociology people say people are nutured to be racist instead of instinctial - ie (racism, sexism, bureaucratic)

Now this is true, But most of these things are instinctual. However sexism and racism have been snowballed turning into a nutured thing. Because we Humans do have reason right? haha no we just have More instincts! The overall view of it is we still carry in us MANY our primative biological instincts. Now most people may act like they have "reason" but most just form to their environment.

Just because we punish people for doing something wrong does not mean we have reason. I would like a better example of what REASON is.

Quote:

Homosexuals seek love and sex outside of reproduction. The emotion of love is something we do experience, so it isn't just "to reproduce" because love exists outside of sex, and sex outside of love

Yeah so what? they have fucked up genes. My theory is its a way that can help keep the population at a certain point. Did love come before sex? Were there homosexuals 1 million years ago? Love is a term coined by our language and denial of our animal ancestors.

Quote:

This is one of the examples i found. Pointing at a possible underlinning social drive. But there are others. Perhaps not reaching the same degree as this. But for example. Firemen, have been known to 'risk' they lives to rescue 'strangers'. You could argue, that this is there job. But in some cases, it is too the point. Of even there collegue's. Say that they are a true 'hero'. That it went against protocol. etc. I know this is highly conditional. But this one person is risking their survivial for a complete stranger.

They are risking their survival so they can be on the news (ego) and Maybe climb the ladder of status by becoming a fire fighter who commands how to handle a fire.

Quote:

This whole discussion is extremely generalizing in the first place...

This topic is about evolution...it takes millions of years to see differences. Of course this is generalized.

This conversation is not based on primative and shallow concepts such as Love, Reason, politics and religion but where the human (race) is actually going.

I have said it tons of other times on this board and I will say it again Buy The Human Zoo - by desmond Harris...this book will change your opinion on everything.

Nov 18, 2004, 11:04 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rez+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rez)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What happens to animals when they are placed in a cage? Well Animals act totally different then how they would in the free environment. Now same with Humans.....we humans have placed a cage around ourseleves....ie cities, jobs etc....[/b]

Well duh..externalities create challenge.challenge creates response. The old action reaction issue.

Quote:

Originally posted by rez+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rez)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Does everybody like to be the best at something? Best forum poster? Best at their job? Best at their school work? Best at forming opinions? Best at being social? Best at being un social? These are all status seeking "sub-groups" which brings me to GROUPS -- who are in these? Well higher up people (the rich)[/b]

I think all people like to either be the best at something or control their environment enough to convince themselves that they are indeed the best at something-even if it is all in their head, but this is just opinion-better ask "everyone".

I now know what you were talking about when you asked to what level I belong-be less ambiguous next time. I would argue that wealth has actually impeded the cleavages in the survival of the fittest pyramid. Wealth lets rich people push their dumb kids forward into realms they should not be in (industry, school, etc). This in turn lowers the overall productivity, distinction, etc of the given establishment over time in my opinion.

Quote:

Originally posted by rez
The basic idea is - if one fails at high status group, one will form a sub-group and be good at that - and so on.

I would argue that this system of Darwinism is hurt by those who have the means to control the system in ways that nature would not intend (money). Besides, the reverse effect is true. Genius’s can live and die in poverty due to externalities created by wealthy dumb kids who either become consumed in greed, or fail to recognize true skill when recruiting, etc.

Quote:

Originally posted by rez
Everybody wants an identity! Opinions, Tattoos, job description, interests are all forms of identity....its our basic biological instinct!

ABRA CADABRA!

Quote:

Originally posted by rez
Now this is true, But most of these things are instinctual. However sexism and racism have been snowballed turning into a nutured thing. Because we Humans do have reason right? haha no we just have More instincts! The overall view of it is we still carry in us MANY our primative biological instincts.

This is semantics. Reason can be considered a human instinct. It is my instinct to sometimes be random, to build tools, discover, ponder, etc. Also, it is different depending on who the individual is, so it really is not a universal human instinct. Reason is very broad, and thus it would be foolish to label it so universaly.

Quote:

Originally posted by rez
Just because we punish people for doing something wrong does not mean we have reason. I would like a better example of what REASON is.

Reason can be explained as logic. It is something that lets us realize how things are, what they can be, what they can not be, etc. It is human reason that lets me cut-away at your statements and find things that appear to be, in my opinion, errors. I could give you other examples too.

Quote:

Originally posted by rez
Yeah so what? they have fucked up genes. My theory is its a way that can help keep the population at a certain point. Did love come before sex? Were there homosexuals 1 million years ago? Love is a term coined by our language and denial of our animal ancestors.

It is a fairly common occurrence if it's just "fucked up genes". This issue is still an unsolved one, but perhaps they are something to counter the huge amount of orphans or something-who knows haha. Also, who is to say how long gay people have been around?

Quote:

Originally posted by rez
They are risking their survival so they can be on the news (ego) and Maybe climb the ladder of status by becoming a fire fighter who commands how to handle a fire.

Or they want an adrenaline rush, or they truly enjoy the rare kind of self-interest that actually benefits other people-it is indeed a rare thing. Like here for example, I am trying to be good at proving people like you wrong, and at the same time I am doing something responsible (influencing your perspective).

<!--QuoteBegin-rez@
This conversation is not based on primative and shallow concepts such as Love, Reason, politics and religion but where the human (race) is actually going.[/quote]

Primative concepts such as reason and politics? These things do in fact decide where we go. Politics kills parts of our species every day, and decides where money is allocated-which has huge impacts on development of certain groups of people.

Reason is what has gotten us this far, and it is not shallow nor is it primative-it is incomprehensible.

<!--QuoteBegin-rez
I have said it tons of other times on this board and I will say it again Buy The Human Zoo - by desmond Harris...this book will change your opinion on everything.[/quote]

It sounds like you do not read a whole lot, and have been convinced by an authority figure that is the author :) Not saying he is wrong, but you make such absolute and blanketed statements about things you could not possibly be certain about. Do not close the book of evolution because you decided to go read a book, and actually form an understanding in your head that you know the answers (guess this proves that we all want to be good at something, and we will construct an environment or a tone around us that gives us this personal impression).

rez · Nov 18, 2004, 11:37 pm

Quote:

Well duh..externalities create challenge.challenge create response. The old action reaction issue.

The basic human structure is challenge and response - yes we agree

Quote:

I think all people like to either be the best at something or control their environment enough to convince themselves that they are indeed the best at something-even if it is all in their head, but this is just opinion-better ask "everyone".

This is the blanket statement you are refering to: you agreed with me in the begining and then said I better ask everyone. Well evolution is conductued through a macro view. There are leaders all over the world, people striving to be at the top. People striving to be the best at their sub group. People all over the world trying to find their own sense of self (opinions, interests, tattoos, jobs)

Quote:

I now know what you were talking about when you asked to what level I belong-be less ambiguous next time. I would argue that wealth has actually imeded the cleavages in the survival of the fittest pyramid. Wealth lets rich people push their dumb kids forward into realms they should not be in (industry, school, etc). This in turn lowers the overall productivity, distinction, etc of the given establishment over time in my opinion.

This is true: but it is only your opinion that some rich people are dumb and should not be in the certain positions they are in.

Quote:

I would argue that this system of Darwinism is hurt by those who have the means to control the system in ways that nature would not intend (money). Besides, the reverse effect is true. Genius’s can live and die in poverty due to externalities created by wealthy dumb kids who either become consumed in greed, or fail to recognize true skill when recruiting, etc.

This yet again is an opinion: Who are you to judge who is smart? Natural selection has a lot to do with luck.

[

Quote:

ABRA CADABRA!

I guess this is sarcasm......I do not know how to respond to this statement.

Quote:

This is semantics. Reason can be considered a human instinct. It is my instinct to sometimes be random, to build tools, discover, ponder, etc. Also, it is different depending on who the individual is, so it really is not a universal human instinct. Reason is very broad, and thus it would be foolish to label it so universaly.

yes I agree.....same thing different word.

Quote:

Reason can be explained as logic. It is something that lets us realize how things are, what they can be, what they can not be, etc. It is human reason that lets me cut-away at your statements and find things that appear to be, in my opinion, errors. I could give you other examples too.

This logical reason where you can challenge and respond refers to consciousness....where your brain over millions of years has rewired itself to what it is now....how you view reality...

Quote:

It is a fairly common occurrence if it's just "fucked up genes". This issue is still an unsolved one, but perhaps they are something to counter the huge amount of orphans or something-who knows haha. Also, who is to say how long gay people have been around?

I dont know when the first gay person was born. But I do know they didnt help with reproduction. I also know there werent enough gay people to help stop reproduction.

Dec 12, 2003, 03:29 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	A New Theory of Four Basic Human Drives A recent book on motivation offers a new theory on basic drives in humans: Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices, by Paul R. Lawrence and Nitin Nohria (Jossey Bass, 2001). These two Harvard Business School professors draw evidence for their four-drive theory from evolutionary psychology and Darwin as well as from the social sciences and business. Human beings are driven to seek ways to fulfill all four drives because these drives are the product of the species’ common evolutionary heritage: they increase the ability of our genes to survive. They make a good case for the following basic drives: The drive to acquire objects and experiences that improve our status relative to others The drive to bond with others in long-term relationships of mutual care and commitment The drive to learn and to make sense of the world and of ourselves The drive to defend ourselves, our loved ones, our beliefs, and our resources from harm Each drive also has a counter-productive side. For example, when the drive to acquire becomes excessively competitive it diminishes respect for others; when the drive to defend one’s current thinking becomes excessive it diminishes the drive to learn new perspectives. These four drives exist in each of us, and determine the choices we make. In some people, one drive will be more developed than others, creating an imbalance. In some jobs, some drives will be emphasized more than others. The authors suggest that organizational life can be enhanced when attention is paid to all four drives. The independence of these drives is what forces people to think and to choose, because not all drives can be met at all times. These four drives are what make people distinctly human- complex beings with complex motives and complex choices. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now me and another poster. Have been Ping Ponging this issue back and forth. Here are some quotes: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Impenitent greed is not a syndrome, it is the basis for LIFE... life demands greed... life is always wanting to sustain itself and sustain itself better and better... that is human life, not a social system... stealing away "wealth" only builds resentement and causes more problems... the percentage is much smaller than that worldwide... no, your "solution" ignores a basic human drive "greed" and blames society for it... if you want to eliminate human drives like greed, why not erase hate and envy as well? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by G. Adams The conditions of our current way of living demand greed, i other words our capitalist system requires you to be greedy to survive. If you change our mode of living to a communist or socialist one, then greed is not neccesary for life. Of course you could argue you need to have a greedless society before you start communism or it will fail.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Here is a very basic list of what i see the 4 drives as: 1) Success 2) Love 3) Understanding 4) Survivial Impenitent see the first one as 'Greed'. But gerenally agrees to the rest. So is 'Greed' a basic Human drive? Or is 'Greed' created by social conditions? Have your say, about this or anything else posted here. I shall also post a few more of my other comments, spread around this debate group. But first i have to find them. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Dec 12, 2003, 03:49 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	IMO greed is a basic human drive because it is an aspect of competitiveness as well as self-interest. As children, we throw temper tantrums to get things and always want all the cookies in the jar instead of one. Our parents are who dicipline us and teach us values such as sharing. So in actuality, the perspective that greed is a bad trait of the human condition that should be eliminated is one that is impressed upon us by society through our philosophy. I do not believe that we are ignorant of it and that it is impressed upon us by the capitalist conditions as others do. I also believe that list can be compressed from 4 traits into one: 1) Success - To succeed is to survive 2) Love - Love is to reproduce, which is to ensure the survival of the species 3) Understanding - Better understanding your environment is to better adapt to and survive in it 4) Survivial - They all come to this Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 13, 2003, 06:37 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Yassen Dear darwinist & Impenitent A very rich man I know told me once “ Greed Begets Greed” as he handed me $500 cash for closing a $500,000 deal for him. This man, who I will not mention his name lied, cheated, stole millions while manipulating the system. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Darwinist Our mordern day society creates greed. Greed is feed by fear. People are only mean when they feel threatened. When you feel threatened you only look out for yourself. You become selfish. Thats what the current economy does. People who have jobs feel threatened. Because there worried about losing those jobs. So money becomes the most important thing. Driving everyone to be greedy. To grab as much as possible, as quick as possible. More is good, more is good.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Waychel </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by IMO greed is a basic human drive because it is an aspect of competitiveness as well as self-interest. As children, we throw temper tantrums to get things and always want all the cookies in the jar instead of one. Our parents are who dicipline us and teach us values such as sharing. So in actuality, the perspective that greed is a bad trait of the human condition that should be eliminated is one that is impressed upon us by society through our philosophy. I do not believe that we are ignorant of it and that it is impressed upon us by the capitalist conditions as others do.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Intresting. I can relate to this situation. But would the same thing happen, to every single child? The basis of 'Greed' here. Can be affected by many things. What if the child was really hungry? What if the child was full? Yes we do get taught things by our parents. But not things that we would not learn without them. Think about it. If a child was hungry and ate all the 'cookies'. It might become very sick. It would learn, that it could not eat all the 'cookies'. Or that 'fire' burns, if you put your hand in it. Because if you put your hand into the 'fire' you are going to learn very quickly, that it indeed does burn. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I also believe that list can be compressed from 4 traits into one: 1) Success - To succeed is to survive 2) Love - Love is to reproduce, which is to ensure the survival of the species 3) Understanding - Better understanding your environment is to better adapt to and survive in it 4) Survivial - They all come to this <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes i agree. Survivial is the basic underlining drive. That is why i believe Capitalist conditions, help create greed. When your survivial is threaten. In the capitalist system, that all boils down to money. Then one of the best ways to survive. Is to become 'greedy' and 'selfish'. The most important thing, becomes 'money'. Because " Money = Survivial ". The more you have in the Capitalist system, the more Successful you are. See number one in the above list. The more Successful you are, the more likely you will obtain Love (2). The better understanding (3) that you have of the capitlalist system. The more you can make, use and abuse. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Dec 13, 2003, 03:24 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	I do not think that children would learn on their own to limit greed, because greed in children is more than just consumption. We teach our children to play fairly with others and share toys with them. We teach our children not to steal things or lie to get what they want. Infact, I would say that greed stays with many children until they mature past the point of rebellion. More or less, acting out in one's own self-interest when it greatly inconveniances others - without any care or consideration to this at all - is greedy. Teenagers are guilty of this on numerous occasions, and they are not "children". The bottom line is that without dicipline at a young age, we do not learn to control ourselves or these primal traits. IMO, this is why many children grow up causing fights; go into HS and participate in gangs and juvenile delinquincy; and eventually resort to more serious crimes as they grow older. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 14, 2003, 06:17 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I do not think that children would learn on their own to limit greed, because greed in children is more than just consumption. We teach our children to play fairly with others and share toys with them. We teach our children not to steal things or lie to get what they want. Infact, I would say that greed stays with many children until they mature past the point of rebellion. More or less, acting out in one's own self-interest when it greatly inconveniances others - without any care or consideration to this at all - is greedy. Teenagers are guilty of this on numerous occasions, and they are not "children".<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Interesting points. You have made more progress in 'convincing' me. Then ENT's rants. But i am not totally convinced. In Sociobiology, Which this whole issue stems from. Even the leading protagonist goes on to say:- </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by* On paper, the critics were sometimes just as extreme. Fifteen cosigners of a statement in the New York Review of Books dismissed Wilson’s book as the latest attempt to reinvigorate theories which in the past “provided an important basis for the enactment of sterilization laws and . . . the eugenics policies which led to the establishment of gas chambers in Nazi Germany.” By the time Wilson deplored “this ugly, irresponsible, and totally false accusation,” he surely had the vast majority of scientists on his side. He was accused of being a “determinist,” but nowhere had he said that human behavior was determined by the genes. “In rough terms,” he explained, “I see maybe 10 percent of human behavior as genetic and 90 percent as environmental.”<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So even if 'greed' is a basic underlining trait. Then it has been encouraged more under our current culture. Also remember, we still have no clue as to the workings of the subconscious. They is speculation that at an age in the womb. We all become receiptive to our enviroment. Perhaps even beginning to learn our 'ways' before we are even born. More so, that the point in our lives. When we are the most receiptive, is between the ages:- of being born and 2 years old. This is when we 'learn' the most. By the time we become 'teenagers' the "damage" has long since been done. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Dec 12, 2003, 04:27 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Aeolus Sedimentary Rock Posts: 8	Well, that would make sense. We are always looking for the next desire because greed drives us to achieve all we desire. So, gluttony, greed ensues in this quest to quench that insatiable thirst.

Dec 14, 2003, 08:26 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	I don't remember anything when I was 2 or before. Doesn't mean I didn't learn anything, but I think increased receptivity in behavior expands years beyond that. I don't think orphan infants have their fates sealed before they meet their adoptive parents. Greed in its purest form is attaining a need or want at the expense of everything else. That would be counterproductive in a social species that most often requires cooperation to survive. It's been shown that some monkey groups recognize the value of fairness. That study could play a larger understanding of human evolution. It looks like there is a human dynamic between self interest and percieved equity in groups that makes it an environmental trait for those qualities to emerge in each person. The Native American culture taught a balance of give and take with themselves and nature. There was greed in them, but it was tied to increasing their prospects for survival in the near future. In hunting/agrarian tribes, killing more buffalo than needed would give them an easier time to face the winter, but they knew that killing too many would be suicidal or would force them to relocate. Success to them could be attained by their role in the community or by their personal feats of endurance and skill, factors that didn't have to be motivated by greed. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dec 14, 2003, 02:36 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	I was not claiming that human behavior is genetic entirely, if this is what you interpreted me as saying. My point was that as children, we are raised due to society's standards to either turn away entirely from our worst perceived primitive traits or learn to control them. Greed is, in my opinion, just another word for absolute self-concern in relation to our most primitive drive of self-preservation. To succeed in one's environment socially and economically is to survive, and competitiveness is an aspect of this. Greed however, is another thing entirely. What would be an example of greed is if one were to succeed in this way by cheating or acting unfairly towards others, by acting outside the bounds of society's laws and the courtesy of other people, while showing absolutely no consideration to having acted in this way at all to succeed. But we do not perceive this as a "bad" thing unless it is first impressed upon us at a young age. An example of this would be a parent taking their 3-year-old into someone else's home. When a young child such as this comes accross something they want, they will take it. The parent has to take the item away from the child and get the message accross to them that taking whatever they want is wrong. We are taught at a very young age to control ourselves because this is how we will survive in a social group of standards and laws. Animals such as wolves also learn this with their pack structure. But just as these animals, human beings too are known to operate on their own without a social group or pack. This is where in nature, greed is a useful trait to have. Absolute, selfish disregard is how any animal survives outside of its pack, herd or social group. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 14, 2003, 05:35 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	white rice </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I don't remember anything when I was 2 or before. Doesn't mean I didn't learn anything, but I think increased receptivity in behavior expands years beyond that. I don't think orphan infants have their fates sealed before they meet their adoptive parents.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Me neither. That is why i mentioned the subconscious. For it is a fact, that we did learn somethings during this time. Learning to talk and walk are the two best examples that come to mind. The reason i mentioned the subconscious. Is that in some circles. It is thought, to be an indirect memory 'device'. It also been mentioned, that the subconscious protects us. I did not mean to imply, that anyone's fate where sealed. Only that by the time we become 'teenages'. That most of society has done a good job, of moulding our thoughts, personality and actions. Due to the environment, each and everyone of us has been brought up in. Each environment unique, due to our parents. How they have been moulded. etc... But even as you get older. You fate, i believe is never truely sealed. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Greed in its purest form is attaining a need or want at the expense of everything else. That would be counterproductive in a social species that most often requires cooperation to survive. It's been shown tha<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Thanks for the link. I going to check it out. I believe, that to understand who we truely are. You must understand, where you have come from. Waychel </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I was not claiming that human behavior is genetic entirely, if this is what you interpreted me as saying. My point was that as children, we are raised due to society's standards to either turn away entirely from our worst perceived primitive traits or learn to control them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I did not mean to imply that you where claiming this. The reason i posted this. Is that Wilson is the most famous person that believes in Sociobiology. This is the whole aspect of the 4 drives mentioned. As i am not totally convinced that 'greed' is a basic trait. That it is more a bye product of these drives. So i posted this quote. As a sort of fail safe. Let us assume, for the moment. That 'greed' is a basic trait. Even Wilson says, that the basic drive is only 10% of our responsible actions. Our environment is responsible for 90%. Our environment being an Capitalist Represenative Society. Which promotes 'greed' as the best means of survivial. When humans are 'fighting' for survivial, they become self involed. Selfish and greedy creatures. Also this takes on a more ominous state of affairs. If we are 'fighting' for our survivial. Then we are not thinking about 'our' situation. In simple terms, this means. If we are 'fighting' each other. We can not group together, to fight the system. Have you noticed, how western society. Has become more 'selfish' and 'apathetic'. During the last 30 years. The system 'crushing' any rebellion. The 'rockers', 'mods', 'hippies' and 'punks'. All gone. Corrupting all those, who come into power. By working for the system. You become the system. ( Now i have wander off topic, by a mile... :) ) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Greed is, in my opinion, just another word for absolute self-concern in relation to our most primitive drive of self-preservation. To succeed in one's environment socially and economically is to survive, and competitiveness is an aspect of this. Greed however, is another thing entirely.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think 'greed' is an excessive desire for something. That why i think it is a bye product of the survivial instict. For example, if threaten by a 'food shortage'. One might become 'greedy', horde all the food. Fight anyone for the food. In order to survive. But then you also have to consider the following:- </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by A peculiar omission from the sociobiologists’ subdivisions of human nature is the faculty of reason itself. Stephen Jay Gould indirectly drew attention to this in his criticism of a claim that Eskimo behavior sometimes validates altruist genes. When food is scarce and an Eskimo family must move, grandparents sometimes stay behind to die rather than slow down the entire family. Here, genes are redundant, Gould points out. Old Eskimos can simply figure it out for themselves, and may be given an incentive to stay behind in families where “sacrifice is celebrated in song and story; aged grandparents who stay behind become the greatest heroes of the clan.” Once reason is admitted as a characteristic of human nature—and in truth it is the characteristic, along with freedom of the will—it can be shown to do the work imputed to phantom genes in almost any example that sociobiologists want to bring up.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The greater sacrifice. Flying in the face of 'greed' and the 'survivial instict'. Sacrifice yourself, for your gene's being passed on. Giving your kin a better chance of survivial. Pointing at a possible, underlining social drive. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by What would be an example of greed is if one were to succeed in this way by cheating or acting unfairly towards others, by acting outside the bounds of society's laws and the courtesy of other people, while showing absolutely no consideration to having acted in this way at all to succeed. But we do not perceive this as a "bad" thing unless it is first impressed upon us at a young age. An example of this would be a parent taking their 3-year-old into someone else's home. When a young child such as this comes accross something they want, they will take it. The parent has to take the item away from the child and get the message accross to them that taking whatever they want is wrong. We are taught at a very young age to control ourselves because this is how we will survive in a social group of standards and laws. Animals such as wolves also learn this with their pack structure. But just as these animals, human beings too are known to operate on their own without a social group or pack. This is where in nature, greed is a useful trait to have. Absolute, selfish disregard is how any animal survives outside of its pack, herd or social group.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Interesting. I can relate. But have you thought, how society affects us in other ways. The duel affect of laws. How the rich, can seem to do what they like. The poor being sent to prison. For example, When 'Robbie Williams', talks about his drug habit. Seems to play the bad boy. This is accepted as 'good olde robbie'. But when Joe Average, does drugs. 3-5 years for him. etc... What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Dec 14, 2003, 06:38 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Let us assume, for the moment. That 'greed' is a basic trait. Even Wilson says, that the basic drive is only 10% of our responsible actions. Our environment is responsible for 90%. Our environment being an Capitalist Represenative Society. Which promotes 'greed' as the best means of survivial. When humans are 'fighting' for survivial, they become self involed. Selfish and greedy creatures.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Of course we cannot say that a person is governed by instinct because we, as human beings, are no longer just animals; we have the ability to reason and think for ourselves. When a man murders another, he is held accountable for those actions and rightly so. However, this doesn't mean that this primitive part of him had nothing to do with it. To offer an analogy, this could be seen as dropping a pebble into a lake. The pebble initially only created one ripple, but that one ripple resulted in many others. I believe the same account and consideration should be taken in regatds to social impact, but I believe these both affect an individual equally. I do not think 90% of the responsibility of an individual's actions can be attributed to society - only themselves. Society and primitive nature are only factors. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I think 'greed' is an excessive desire for something. That why i think it is a bye product of the survivial instict. For example, if threaten by a 'food shortage'. One might become 'greedy', horde all the food. Fight anyone for the food. In order to survive.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is partly what I was trying to say. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The greater sacrifice. Flying in the face of 'greed' and the 'survivial instict'. Sacrifice yourself, for your gene's being passed on. Giving your kin a better chance of survivial. Pointing at a possible, underlining social drive.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is true, but I believe it is also a mistake to hold family in the same regard as social drive. Assuring the success of one's family is assuring the success of one's own genes. This is not an obligation to one's social group but an obligation to one's drive of propagation. Keep in mind that lions and many other animals for the same reason will kill the offspring of others in their own species to insure that their own offspring encounter less competition as they mature. Equally, in many extreme circumstances, individuals often put more value upon the lives of their family than they do upon the hundreds or thousands that make up their social group. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Interesting. I can relate. But have you thought, how society affects us in other ways. The duel affect of laws. How the rich, can seem to do what they like. The poor being sent to prison. For example, When 'Robbie Williams', talks about his drug habit. Seems to play the bad boy. This is accepted as 'good olde robbie'. But when Joe Average, does drugs. 3-5 years for him. etc... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I believe this is a matter of sociology rather than genetics/human nature so to speak. As for what I think of it, in our society we both conciously and unconciously judge others by how they have succeeded in life economically. We look at someone who is wealthier than us as having outdone us. This also gives us the impression that they are somehow ABOVE us. I believe that this is changing however. Law enforcement over the years has become bolder in cracking down on Hollywood and other "celebrities", such as Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 15, 2003, 01:19 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,) ... The Native American culture taught a balance of give and take with themselves and nature. There was greed in them, but it was tied to increasing their prospects for survival in the near future. In hunting/agrarian tribes, killing more buffalo than needed would give them an easier time to face the winter, but they knew that killing too many would be suicidal or would force them to relocate. Success to them could be attained by their role in the community or by their personal feats of endurance and skill, factors that didn't have to be motivated by greed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "Native American" culture?!? which tribe?!? all of them?!? compare the Macaw and the Apache with the Sioux and the Cherokee... to claim that "Native American" culture anything as a generality is ignorance... there were and are over 300 distinct "Native American" cultures... you are using a perverted view of "Native American" culture that some WHITE ENVIRONMENTALIST has invented to help sell his lies... there is no "Native American" culture... and in the future, please call us "Indians" as the ignorant Columbus did... "Native American" is an insult because ANY idiot born on this continent is a "Native American" "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Dec 15, 2003, 03:45 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Geez Impenitent calm down. >_>; This whole discussion is extremely generalizing in the first place... White rice was just making a point through use of a general comparison. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 15, 2003, 12:15 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Of course we cannot say that a person is governed by instinct because we, as human beings, are no longer just animals; we have the ability to reason and think for ourselves. When a man murders another, he is held accountable for those actions and rightly so. However, this doesn't mean that this primitive part of him had nothing to do with it. To offer an analogy, this could be seen as dropping a pebble into a lake. The pebble initially only created one ripple, but that one ripple resulted in many others. I believe the same account and consideration should be taken in regatds to social impact, but I believe these both affect an individual equally. I do not think 90% of the responsibility of an individual's actions can be attributed to society - only themselves. Society and primitive nature are only factors.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> True. Our growth is 10% instict and 90% enviromental. But i think murder is different form killing. What i mean is, anyone is capable of killing to survive. But i think only a few are capable of murder. Of course in depends on the motive. But i think you see my point. I did not mean to imply that the 90% was society's responsilility. Only that, that 90% is the enviromental impact upon any one person. Therefore helping to mould who that person becomes. I comes to the individual actions, are choosen. We all decide what we are going to do. According to our 'mould'. But i can not say all my choices where the best ones. I have made mistakes. I have done well. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by This is true, but I believe it is also a mistake to hold family in the same regard as social drive. Assuring the success of one's family is assuring the success of one's own genes. This is not an obligation to one's social group but an obligation to one's drive of propagation. Keep in mind that lions and many other animals for the same reason will kill the offspring of others in their own species to insure that their own offspring encounter less competition as they mature. Equally, in many extreme circumstances, individuals often put more value upon the lives of their family than they do upon the hundreds or thousands that make up their social group.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is one of the examples i found. Pointing at a possible underlinning social drive. But there are others. Perhaps not reaching the same degree as this. But for example. Firemen, have been known to 'risk' they lives to rescue 'strangers'. You could argue, that this is there job. But in some cases, it is too the point. Of even there collegue's. Say that they are a true 'hero'. That it went against protocol. etc. I know this is highly conditional. But this one person is risking their survivial for a complete stranger. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I believe this is a matter of sociology rather than genetics/human nature so to speak. As for what I think of it, in our society we both conciously and unconciously judge others by how they have succeeded in life economically. We look at someone who is wealthier than us as having outdone us. This also gives us the impression that they are somehow ABOVE us. I believe that this is changing however. Law enforcement over the years has become bolder in cracking down on Hollywood and other "celebrities", such as Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, i am encorage by these forms of actons. It shows, rightly. That no one is above the law. But the next thing, in the states. That has to change. Is how the IRS deals with tax. In this situtation, you are guilty. Until you prove yourself otherwise. If your rich, this is not a problem. You can hire a tax lawyer. However if your poor. It is best to come up with the money now. Then hope later on that the truth comes out. Which leads me to a wander off topic. But have you noticed. When ever you owe any government money. ie- tax. You have to pay 'today'. But when they owe you money. You have to fill out forms in triplicate. Get your great grand father to sign it in blood. Run backwards and fowards pulling your hair out. Then my be 6-10 weeks later. You may see some money from them... What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Nov 16, 2004, 09:07 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
BrightKID Sedimentary Rock Posts: 5	If Greed is what runs society then your in the wrong debate. Evolutionary psychology is based on the recognition that the human brain consists of a large collection of functionally specialized computational devices that evolved to solve the adaptive problems regularly encountered by our hunter-gatherer ancestors". This is about who we are and how we learn.

Nov 16, 2004, 09:09 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
BrightKID Sedimentary Rock Posts: 5	If Greed is what runs society then your in the wrong debate. According to the Center for Evolutionary psychology "evolutionary psychology is based on the recognition that the human brain consists of a large collection of functionally specialized computational devices that evolved to solve the adaptive problems regularly encountered by our hunter-gatherer ancestors". This is about who we are and how we learn.