Human Nature

[Tsuyoiko]

I don't want to send the Religious Views thread OT, so brought the discussion on human nature to a new thread.

What is human nature? Does it exist at all?

Originally Posted by scorpion da black

hormones, DNA structure , mammal primitivety ....all make up humans' aggressive nature

Hormones and genes are physical characteristics that can affect behaviour, and they vary a lot between individuals. Is human nature a physical characteristic(s) or a behavioural trait(s)?

Originally Posted by bakaKanadajin

I think when people say human nature they refer to the primal and instinctual elements of our psyche.

What are these instincts and where do they reside? Are they the same for everyone?

Layers upon layers of social conditoning exist through which we channel these urges and ultimately play-out our lives, but at times the raw elements themselves surface. Actually there are many elements which are not very heavily cloaked at all, such as hunger, the battle of the sexes, violence, etc.

Again, does social conditioning vary at all between individuals? Does everyone have the same instincts? Even if they do, do they act on them in the same ways? Is instinct the only thing that determines how we act? What about rationality?

[Mars Man]

Alright, I'll help get the ball rolling here. I would agree that this very subject matter would touch on a number of things, and by bringing to light the more (and some cases most) likely correct or accurate understandings on some of them, as they come up, will touch on and have bearing on fields such as religion (as opposed to religious belief-systems), sociology, economics, evolutionary psychology and biology, anthropology, genetics, and neurology.

I will take position that the base of what could be generally said to be 'human nature' is rooted in genetical make-up, which in turn leads to behavioural traits through our more developed brain--thus, in a way, ration.

Please do give me a little time to get started, though.

[bakaKanadajin]

Absolutely not Mars Man no dilly dallying let's have it!!

No I'm kidding ;)

Since I was quoted in the OP I'll just elaborate on my own words to get the discussion going (if it departs from its terminal).

As Mars Man already alluded to, genetic make up plays a huge role in determining what humans 'do', both in their conscious and subconscious actions. Everything from the respiratory cycle, hunger and endorphin/pleasure center activity, reward response, sexual desires, aversion to pain and suffering, shivering when cold, women's monthly cycles, ETC. To answer the OP's questions, I would say they reside in the brain as a balance of hormones and chemicals achieved by properly acting upon signals eminating from imbalances as they occur. That is to say, with regards to hunger for example, when the brain receives hunger signals from the body a specific chemical reaction occurs that causes a creature to search for food. The specific chemicals and hormones released empower the creature because they make the experience neurochemically 'thrilling' and pleasurable, otherwise we'd never eat. I would imagine this is the same for all humans, as we are all genetically similar aside from phyiscal manifestations of various skin/hair colour genotypes and other cosmetic variations. As to whether we're all equally intelligent and capable, I'd prefer to think we are.

Regarding social conditioning, the short answers are yes we all have the same instincts, and no we don't act on them the same way. They are base and foundational, as I suggest above, derived from evolution and the need to survive against predators and nature. But in this day and age, how they get played out and filtered through various veils of social conditioning can vary as widely as the number of people that have existed, exist, and ever will exist on the planet.

In general, people are socialized in groups and therefore exhibit similar traits depending on how homogenous that group is. But I would wager that even within these groups minor variations exist that are wholly contributed to the individual and their interaction with other individuals. Instinct is the raw matter propelling action; the level to which it's refined via logic, cause/effect experience, etc. is culture and socialization.

The interesting thing is that culture and socialization occured even at the EARLIEST, most primal stages of human evolutionary development, so to try and separate them is difficult. The only answer I have is that ever since the advent of rudimentary spacial thinking and language (perhaps around 7-10 million years ago when we diverged from the great apes into the family of Australopithecus) we've been gathering culture and socialization that is uniquely 'human'. The complexity is what increases over time, but the genesis of it all is as old as we are.

IMHO, human nature is genetically programmed, 'raw' data rooted in survival whose manifestations set into motion and are also, via self-feedback, directed by socialization. It's the reason why the same person can be hungry, have an eating disorder, choose not to eat, vomit, then feel 'better' all at the same time.

[Goldiegirl]

I was watching a tv show last night and it was detailing the live of the first homo sapiens. At first sight they seemed primitive, and then when you realize all that they were up against I was able to see how tough they were. They were smart, they could survive in the wild, I wonder which ones of us could. I don't think all my human nature would save me.

[Kinsao]

Well, when people say "it's human nature", it usually seems like what they mean is simply a general trait in a lot of human beings - which is often seen as being an instinct. I guess an instinct would be something genetic, rather than learned behaviour. Although it could be some kind of learned social 'norm', I suppose - kind of like if someone was defending their partner in a physical fight, you might say "that's human nature" (implying a kind of 'primitive' instinct), whereas in fact the boundary could be blurred about whether it was an instinct (for preservation of the species) or something that is 'learned' as being socially acceptable.

I'm confusing myself here.

Hormones and genes are physical characteristics that can affect behaviour, and they vary a lot between individuals. Is human nature a physical characteristic(s) or a behavioural trait(s)?

I would say it's probably a behavioural trait... or perhaps a combination of genes and/or brain chemistry, which is essentially physical, manifesting itself in behavioural traits.

does social conditioning vary at all between individuals?

Well, naturally it does... people of different cultures have differing 'social conditioning' on some things, and even within the same culture there are differences - the 'nurture' debate.

Does everyone have the same instincts? Even if they do, do they act on them in the same ways?

I don't think that everyone has the same instincts, but I do think that the *majority* of human beings have very similar instincts at basic level. After all, human beings are animals - although that doesn't mean there aren't some humans who aren't the same as 'the norm'.

For a very simplified example, the majority of human beings have heterosexual 'instinct' due to the practicality of the species having to reproduce - but not everyone has that 'instinct'. There are definitely 'majority groups', in instincts as much as anything else, but also of course 'minority groups' - since we are evidently not all the same!

Not everyone acts on their instincts in the same ways - that's the 'nurture' part kicking in, as well as of course other aspects to their brain - their 'character' or 'personality' if you like, which modifies how they respond to the 'instinct'.

Is instinct the only thing that determines how we act? What about rationality?

Of course, instinct isn't the only thing that determines how we act... clearly, we have rationality as well, as evidenced by the fact that not everyone acts on their immediate instincts, and people respond to them in different ways. In fact I think if we didn't have rationality there would be no such thing as the OP....

Just my initial thoughts.

[Skullcrushergurl]

People are just people. It's a combination of things inhearited from ancestors.
Hm...but perhaps there is human nature. *can't decide*

[scorpion da black]

although i am a Muslim....i believe in logical answers.......science and constructive philosophy actually made me what i am and made embrace that faith.
after looking at everything from a scientific point of view, i can tell you this:

testosterone , same with all men, makes them aggressive, angry, powerful, and some times impolite.

estrogen, makes women sensitive, caring, passionate.

adrenaline, fear, anxiety or anger...
these are example of hormones that effect the humans' thinking brain,behavior , logicality is not needed here. the only difference we have from animals is a brain with greater power to think...so in normal times humans can over power their primal instinct and think logically and have a constructive conscience.
animals on the other hand have less capable brains and tend to let their instinct drive them...lions fight other lions take over their pride and kill all the cubs that were born from the defeated lion's seed...with no sign of compassion or conscience.....that is because mammals from the cat family are so packed with testosterone ...

now from a religious point of view animals think as enough for their survival. and have this way of living because this is how God created them ...same as scientific logic.
animals can be trained, how ever, and show signs of understanding...
what led me to a conclusion that if they had more brain capacity, they could be trained to be civil.....like human beings.

DNA structure is very diverse between every individual on earth and the other.
but the 46 chromosome chain never does change, the X Y system is the same.
DNA is similar between all humans in wide bases...but differs in content.
so there might be some encrypted behavior information in that never changing area of DNA...and humans will always have that unless they become something other than Homosapien.

you cant distinguish between physical and behavioral traits...it all affects the other and are greatly related.
a man with a dysfunctional frontal cortex acts like animals...only wants to eat and have sex..and he even forgot most of his language ...( that is a real incident )

but you were right from a point, that this unique human brain should be brought up and raised...what do i mean?
there has been few incidents in which children were abused by their parents and locked up and were only given food...
in one incident a girl reached age of twelve, knowing nothing but her room....that was her world....no language, couldn't even learn it any more...weak progress in teaching her any thing...
scientists discovered that her brain is 5 % lesser in capacity to normal humans ...and that was because this brain was never stimulated to any experiences... this brain was not raised do it would grow to its normal standard...when a person is not used to think his brain powers diminish. Albert Inestien's brain was proved by scientists to have worked 2 % higher than normal humans, because he was thinking all the time, he spent 60 % of his time a day next to the black bored trying to unlock the secrets of physics theories ...

so yes the brain should be nurtured with knowledge the same way the body is nurtured with food.

the point i stress is there is a human standard no one can cross which makes human nature...

you can not distinguish between behavioral and physical traits.

[Satorian]

I don't think you are going to settle the nature vs. nurture debate here.

At its core it's a constructivist debate with circular influence between genetics and memetics within an ever changing milieu.

Do I get a cookie for pointing out the obvious, now?

[Revenant]

Having been brought up in a Christian family, I was taught that human nature was sinful. It contained greed, hate, rage, envy, and base sexual desires. Now that I'm a secularist, I would also have to say that human nature also contains some naturally good traits, such as empathy in it's various forms, loyalty, the ability to gain great pleasure from difficult challenges, etc etc.

I would define human nature as the most typical emotional response in a range of situations, such as 'escalating expectations' or 'the desire to help a person of a similar affiliation' Certainly there are people that don't have what we would typically refer to as human nature. Such as, 'it's human nature to want more', and there are certainly people who are perfectly content with the little they have, or I might say that 'it's human nature to feel compassion when watching someone in great agony', and most people do feel compassion when watching a video of a woman going through an extremely painful medical treatment, there are a few people who do not though.

As to social conditioning. People range from being so socially conditioned that they can't break from conformity, to people that just don't get along due to their inability to conform to social conditioning. And a lot of social conditioning is based on the most common and basic desires, such as sexuality, the desire for power, etc etc.