Humans are "very inclined" towards mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity.

[TomC]

Regardless of whether or not the Nazis were Christians, there has been sectarian violence among Christians throughout history.

I argue that most humans (presumably including yourself) think sectarian violence is bad, stupid, unsuccessful, harmful, a mistake...

Same goes for Hitler/Nazism.

If most humans disagree with Hitler then most humans are NOT "very inclined" towards mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity.

Most people see it that way now. We've got the clarity of hindsight.

But Hitler was wildly popular in the 30s.
Not just amongst Germans, he had huge support across the western world. He had a framed portrait of Henry Ford on the wall in his office, because Ford represented his strong supporters in the USA. Which were many and powerful.
Tom

People didn't wait til the end of the war to decide that the Nazis were evil.

Nobody said that they did.
However, Hitler had a ton of supporters in both Christendom and the Muslim world. And it didn't just go away. There are still self identified Nazis, in case you hadn't noticed.

And most of them (all in my experience) support Trump because he's the closest thing to Hitler still available.

Humans are extremely prone to stupid and immoral behavior because God makes us that way.
If there is a God.
Tom

 

[Lion IRC]

From “most humans disagree with Hitler,” it does NOT follow that most humans are not very inclined … etc

TomC used the Nazis as the demonstrative example to logically support the proposition.

It doesn't matter which selective example you use - Nazis, Crusades, Jim Jones... my counter argument entails that MOST humans think those are stupid/wrong.

 

[ideologyhunter]

God doesn't. Deuteronomy 13.

 

[DBT]

To confirm the vote results you only have to look at human history and the current state of the world.

 

[Lion IRC]

Regardless of whether or not the Nazis were Christians, there has been sectarian violence among Christians throughout history.

I argue that most humans (presumably including yourself) think sectarian violence is bad, stupid, unsuccessful, harmful, a mistake...

Same goes for Hitler/Nazism.

If most humans disagree with Hitler then most humans are NOT "very inclined" towards mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity.

Most people see it that way now. We've got the clarity of hindsight.

But Hitler was wildly popular in the 30s.
Not just amongst Germans, he had huge support across the western world. He had a framed portrait of Henry Ford on the wall in his office, because Ford represented his strong supporters in the USA. Which were many and powerful.
Tom

People didn't wait til the end of the war to decide that the Nazis were evil.

Nobody said that they did.
However, Hitler had a ton of supporters in both Christendom and the Muslim world. And it didn't just go away.

If most humans disagree with Hitler then most humans are NOT "very inclined" towards mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity.

There are still self identified Nazis, in case you hadn't noticed.

A minority of humans doesnt help your case about the majority of humans.

Humans are extremely prone to stupid and immoral behavior

Some humans yes. Most humans???? En masses? In most cases on average?
Examples please.

 

[bilby]

If most humans disagree with Hitler then most humans are NOT "very inclined" towards mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity.

And by the same (broken, as usual) logic:

If most humans never fall from skyscrapers, then most humans are NOT "very likely" to suffer an injury from a fall in their lifetimes.

 

[pood]

If most humans disagree with Hitler then most humans are NOT "very inclined" towards mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity.

And by the same (broken, as usual) logic:

If most humans never fall from skyscrapers, then most humans are NOT "very likely" to suffer an injury from a fall in their lifetimes.

I know, right? We just showed him upthread the logic failure here, and he blandly repeats it without blinking in eye.

 

[Lion IRC]

To confirm the vote results you only have to look at human history and the current state of the world.

If the majority of humans agree there's undesirable.... mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity going on which ought NOT be going on, then we are NOT very inclined towards such behaviour.

Look at the word "mistake" in the OP.

By definition, we should have, and do have, an aversion to making mistakes. By definition we do not plan or want to make mistakes. That's the opposite of being "very inclined towards" making mistakes.

 

[DBT]

Prone may be a better word to use than inclined.

 

[abaddon]

If the majority of humans agree there's undesirable.... mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity going on which ought NOT be going on, then we are NOT very inclined towards such behaviour.

Inclined doesn't mean want. The relevant definition here for "inclined" is "have a tendency to do something".

Like you, mistaken people aren't inclined to want to know that they make mistakes so they often get defensive about it instead of try to learn from their mistakes.

By definition we do not plan or want to make mistakes. That's the opposite of being "very inclined towards" making mistakes.

No it isn't. You just switched out the meaning of the word to make a silly argument. As usual with creationists, you often argue for the lowering of epistemic standards so that believers get to use mere assertions as the evidence for their beliefs.

 

[pood]

If the majority of humans agree there's undesirable.... mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity going on which ought NOT be going on, then we are NOT very inclined towards such behaviour.

Inclined doesn't mean want. The relevant definition here for "inclined" is "have a tendency to do something".

Like you, mistaken people aren't inclined to want to know that they make mistakes so they often get defensive about it instead of try to learn from their mistakes.

By definition we do not plan or want to make mistakes. That's the opposite of being "very inclined towards" making mistakes.

No it isn't. You just switched out the meaning of the word to make a silly argument. As usual with creationists, you often argue for the lowering of epistemic standards so that believers get to use mere assertions as the evidence for their beliefs.

That’s exactly what he did, equivocate on the meaning of the word “inclined.” It’s easily understood, for the purpose of this discussion, that “inclined” in this context means “prone to error,” but he has switched over the mean of “inclined” to “desiring to,” which no one here is talking about and he knows it. He also does the same thing — equivocate — on the meaning of the word “create.” Standard creationist BS, which deceives only the unskeptical and uneducated.

 

[rousseau]

@Lion IRC if you want a real answer to this question you'll need to look into the under-workings of evolutionary biology.

If someone is scared that there's a tiger around the corner and runs away 10 times out of 10, this is going to save their life the one time there was a tiger. So there is a massive evolutionary advantage to the 'mistakes' that this thread is alluding to. Absolutely nothing leads to greater odds of survival and reproduction than avoiding death and destitution. And a moderately paranoid mind, that assumes everything is out to get them is a sure-fire way to achieve this.

So the question really needs to be re-framed without the negative connotations of 'delusion' and 'mistakes'. For the purpose of individual survival, this is exactly what we would want to see. If you're expecting some element of group selection, it sucks, but group selection isn't how biology operates.

And traditionally intelligent people often lack the natural intuition and perception that the so called 'ignorant' do, and don't always lead their lives in spectacularly sound ways either.

 

[Lion IRC]

That’s exactly what he did, equivocate on the meaning of the word “inclined.”

"Very inclined."
"Very inclined towards"

Pick a dictionary.

...likely or wanting to do something
...a tendency to favor one of two or more actions or conclusions.

I'm arguing that most humans are not "very inclined" to do stuff which most humans agree is ...a mistake, stupid, deluded, etc.

It’s easily understood, for the purpose of this discussion, that “inclined” in this context means “prone to error,”

No. You dont get to accuse me of equivocation while simultaneously trying to change the actual wording of the proposition.

In any case, I would argue we aren't even probabilistically "prone to". (More likely than not.)

...to be mistaken, deluded, lying, self-harming, etc.

but he has switched over the mean of “inclined” to “desiring to,”

No.
TomC hasn't conceded that most humans don't want to act the way stated in the OP.
Neither has there been any clarification as to the supposed motivation most humans would have for being "very inclined" that way.

Where's the good reason humans would supposedly have for this alleged widespread inclination?

 

[Lion IRC]

@Lion IRC if you want a real answer to this question you'll need to look into the under-workings of evolutionary biology.

Yes. And I will argue that this provides evidence against TomC's contention.

If someone is scared that there's a tiger around the corner and runs away 10 times out of 10, this is going to save their life the one time there was a tiger. So there is a massive evolutionary advantage to the 'mistakes' that this thread is alluding to.

Theres nothing mistaken about thinking actual noises behind bushes are real. The mistake would be thinking those noises can be ignored as mere figments of our imagination.

The intelligent, rational thing to do is infer that something exists which is making that noise.

The noise triggers rationally justified caution - not an irrational assumption/delusion.

Absolutely nothing leads to greater odds of survival and reproduction than avoiding death and destitution.

Yeah. Its almost like we are "very inclined" to act rationally, wisely.

And a moderately paranoid mind, that assumes everything is out to get them is a sure-fire way to achieve this.

This isn't paranoia. This is observation of actual real world evidence of the environment around us. If it confers a survival advantage, it's something wise that we should be "very inclined" to do. Avoiding risk isn't stupid.

So the question really needs to be re-framed without the negative connotations of 'delusion' and 'mistakes'.

Ask TomC. I think the negative connotations of the accusation were intentional.

For the purpose of individual survival, this is exactly what we would want to see. If you're expecting some element of group selection, it sucks, but group selection isn't how biology operates.

But it's not just individual survival.
As humans we collectively cooperate to act (rationally) in our best interests.

TomC's examples of the Nazis and the Crusades etc. were widely opposed and rejected collectively and cooperatively by the majority of humans. We are not "very inclined" towards liking the Ku Klux Klan.

And traditionally intelligent people often lack the natural intuition and perception that the so called 'ignorant' do, and don't always lead their lives in spectacularly sound ways either.

Evolution (by whatever definition you use) has long since cast its vote in this poll. And natural selection culls those humans who are "very inclined" towards mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity...

 

[rousseau]

Theres nothing mistaken about thinking actual noises behind bushes are real. The mistake would be thinking those noises can be ignored as mere figments of our imagination.

The intelligent, rational thing to do is infer that something exists which is making that noise.

The noise triggers rationally justified caution - not an irrational assumption/delusion.

But there is a difference between these two reactions:

- maybe I should take this noise seriously and use caution
- overreaction and mistaken interpretation over every out-of-the-ordinary stimulus that happens

Both of them are going to use caution when there's danger, but one of them isn't able to reconcile when their reactions might actually be unwarranted, and gets carried away by those reactions. The second type of person is actually quite common.

 

[Politesse]

A rather serious oversimplification, if you ask me.

 

[DBT]

@Lion IRC if you want a real answer to this question you'll need to look into the under-workings of evolutionary biology.

Yes. And I will argue that this provides evidence against TomC's contention.

If someone is scared that there's a tiger around the corner and runs away 10 times out of 10, this is going to save their life the one time there was a tiger. So there is a massive evolutionary advantage to the 'mistakes' that this thread is alluding to.

Theres nothing mistaken about thinking actual noises behind bushes are real. The mistake would be thinking those noises can be ignored as mere figments of our imagination.

The intelligent, rational thing to do is infer that something exists which is making that noise.

The noise triggers rationally justified caution - not an irrational assumption/delusion.

Absolutely nothing leads to greater odds of survival and reproduction than avoiding death and destitution.

Yeah. Its almost like we are "very inclined" to act rationally, wisely.

And a moderately paranoid mind, that assumes everything is out to get them is a sure-fire way to achieve this.

This isn't paranoia. This is observation of actual real world evidence of the environment around us. If it confers a survival advantage, it's something wise that we should be "very inclined" to do. Avoiding risk isn't stupid.

So the question really needs to be re-framed without the negative connotations of 'delusion' and 'mistakes'.

Ask TomC. I think the negative connotations of the accusation were intentional.

For the purpose of individual survival, this is exactly what we would want to see. If you're expecting some element of group selection, it sucks, but group selection isn't how biology operates.

But it's not just individual survival.
As humans we collectively cooperate to act (rationally) in our best interests.

TomC's examples of the Nazis and the Crusades etc. were widely opposed and rejected collectively and cooperatively by the majority of humans. We are not "very inclined" towards liking the Ku Klux Klan.

And traditionally intelligent people often lack the natural intuition and perception that the so called 'ignorant' do, and don't always lead their lives in spectacularly sound ways either.

Evolution (by whatever definition you use) has long since cast its vote in this poll. And natural selection culls those humans who are "very inclined" towards mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity...

Generally speaking, we are not all inclined to like the KKK, but how many of us are inclined to towards various forms of religion, ideology or irrational conspiracy theories?

 

[rousseau]

A rather serious oversimplification, if you ask me.

Sarah Palin and Leonard Cohen, not a whole lot in common.

 

[Lion IRC]

A rather serious oversimplification, if you ask me.

Was that your vote in the poll - disagree slightly?

 

[Politesse]

A rather serious oversimplification, if you ask me.

Was that your vote in the poll - disagree slightly?

Indeed. Humans are fundamentally rational. It's the exceptions and disagreements that catch our attention, but that ignores most of our thoughts and behavior, most of the time. And many of our arguments stem from differences of perception or conflicting systems of reasoning, more so than from "mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity". My job as an anthropologist would hardly be possible if humans were fundamentally ignorant, self-harming morons. All of that sounds good in a stand-up routine or a forum argument, but it is not a clear-eyed portrayal of the human condition. To those wishing to take the notion more seriously than that, I would advise them to become more careful observers of people.