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

[DBT]

Rational enough to build cathedrals and temples to imaginary gods, whom we worship and pray to. Rational enough to divide ourselves according to politics, ideology, race and colour. Rational enough to destroy ecosystems while chasing profit, forming divisions in class, power and wealth, where many struggle for the basics in life while others are richer than nation states.......

 

[Lion IRC]

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.

Humans are fundamentally rational.
A pretty uncontroversial opinion if you ask me.
Homo sapiens. Etc etc

 

[DBT]

But prone to acting in self interest, making errors, self deception, etc....

 

[rousseau]

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.

You do need to add a qualifier that people are economically rational, most of the time. But I'd add that, IMO, this isn't a very good metric for being ipso facto rational. The basic M.O. for most people is not piss off our friends and family, but for most of us this doesn't happen via a reasoning process, it happens because we aren't able to reason ourselves out of the basic beliefs that our family and friends taught us. There is no actual logic involved, just absorption of information and behaviors. And those who do reason themselves out of the beliefs are usually smart enough to get the hell out of there and into a safer community.

So if our metric for 'rational' is able to conform and blend into the world around us then we're absolutely good at doing that. But my personal metric for the term would be that we're able to reason ourselves into a state of consistent compassion and kindness. Those who aren't compassionate or kind, or able to truly empathize with others, aren't rational. Almost all of Mahayana Buddhism is predicated on this.

 

[Lion IRC]

You do need to add a qualifier that people are economically rational, most of the time...

Most people, most of the time?

...The basic M.O. for most people is not piss off our friends and family

Would you say "very inclined" to avoid doing so?

So if our metric for 'rational' is able to conform and blend into the world around us then we're absolutely good at doing that....

Would you say that supports the idea that humans basically want to avoid mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity...

But my personal metric for the term would be that we're able to reason ourselves into a state of consistent compassion and kindness....

Would you say we're inclined to do so?

Those who aren't compassionate or kind, or able to truly empathize with others, aren't rational...

This thread seems to be an opinion poll as to whether humans should (by and large) be viewed as basically inclined to favor rational, enlightened, altruistic, wise, collective good will, or the opposite - inclined to NOT behave that way, or favour that approach.

Optimists versus pessimists.

 

[Lion IRC]

Rational enough to build cathedrals and temples to imaginary gods, whom we worship and pray to. Rational enough to divide ourselves according to politics, ideology, race and colour. Rational enough to destroy ecosystems while chasing profit, forming divisions in class, power and wealth, where many struggle for the basics in life while others are richer than nation states.......

Building cathedrals and temples is NOT the goal of religions.

Terrestrial politics, racial division, mammon worship, power, greed, 'othering' is not the wheelhouse of religion. The largest religion in the world teaches the exact opposite of such.

I knew eventually someone would show their hand.

P. Most people are religious.
P. Religion is stupid
C. Therefore most people....

But the goal of religion(s) is overwhelmingly to promote ethics and human happiness. And natural selection has given religion its imprimatur insofar as conferring a survival advantage.

 

[pood]

Would you say that supports the idea that humans basically want to avoid mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity...

Perhaps, just for a few moments, you could stop weaseling and equivocating and specify which shade of meaning of “inclined” you are advancing. This was already noted upthread. Maybe you responded, but I have mostly stopped reading your bullshit because it is as boring and predictable as it is nonsensical.

 

[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

️ Here's the response you didn't read. ️

Perhaps, just for a few moments, you could stop weaseling and equivocating and specify which shade of meaning of “inclined” you are advancing. This was already noted upthread. Maybe you responded, but I have mostly stopped reading your bullshit

Take a few minutes to think about how disingenuous it is to ask someone, (whose posts you don't read because you think their answers are bullshit, weaseling, equivocation,) to repeat their answer to you..

 

[laughing dog]

Premiss - The crusades were bad, stupid, unsuccessful, harmful, a mistake.

Premiss - Most humans agree the crusades were bad, stupid, unsuccessful, harmful, a mistake...

Conclusion - Most humans aren't stupid. Arent bad. Most humans don't support bad, stupid, unsuccessful, harmful mistakes.

The crusades don't represent mainstream human ideals.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. First, stupid people can make correct conclusions. Second, both stupidity and immorality exist on along a continuum. For example a cannibal might agree that the Crusades were bad, etcc… but still eat freshky killed human flesh.

 

[pood]

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

️ Here's the response you didn't read. ️

Of course I read it. You are still equivocating on which shade of meaning you are using of the word inclined. If you mean most people are inclined not to WANT to make mistakes, be stupid, deluded, etc., I think that’s true. But the sense of the word “inclined” implied in the OP is “being prone to,” as, “prone to committing errors” regardless of whether they want to or not. Make up your mind what you mean and stop blaming others for your slippery equivocations and evasiveness, such as not yet giving a straight answer to question whether God is to blame for brain cancer in children, and if not, why not? Your prior insinuations that parental misbehavior somehow causes such cancer is of course laughably stupid, so try not to repeat it please.

 

[Lion IRC]

Premiss - The crusades were bad, stupid, unsuccessful, harmful, a mistake.

Premiss - Most humans agree the crusades were bad, stupid, unsuccessful, harmful, a mistake...

Conclusion - Most humans aren't stupid. Arent bad. Most humans don't support bad, stupid, unsuccessful, harmful mistakes.

The crusades don't represent mainstream human ideals.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. First, stupid people can make correct conclusions.

That would mean their decision was smart - not stupid. This is contrary to the claim they are stupid.

TomC uses examples of behaviour which most people think is stupid, evil, deluded, mistaken etc etc. This is kicking the ball towards my end of the soccer field.

TomC should find examples of stupidity, wickedness, delusion which most people are "very inclined" to think is wise, moral, good, sensible, rational.

Second, both stupidity and immorality exist on along a continuum.

This would seem to equivocate two things on opposite sides of the continuum. Stupidity, immorality on one side versus wisdom and morality on the other. We are asked to pick one - not blur the line. Which side are we very inclined towards?

For example a cannibal might agree that the Crusades were bad, etcc… but still eat freshky killed human flesh.

Again. I'm not arguing that nobody is ever inclined to...wage a crusade, support Nazism, eat people, join the Ku Klux Klan...

I'm arguing that as a whole, humans are not very inclined to do such things. And my claim rests on the seemingly obvious fact that most people oppose, genocide, Nazism, cannibalism, etc.

 

[bilby]

Rational enough to build cathedrals and temples to imaginary gods, whom we worship and pray to. Rational enough to divide ourselves according to politics, ideology, race and colour. Rational enough to destroy ecosystems while chasing profit, forming divisions in class, power and wealth, where many struggle for the basics in life while others are richer than nation states.......

Building cathedrals and temples is NOT the goal of religions.

No, of course not. They are one of the mechanisms by which religions achieve their actual goal: Making the leaders of religions wealthy and powerful.

Terrestrial politics, racial division, mammon worship, power, greed, 'othering' is not the wheelhouse of religion. The largest religion in the world teaches the exact opposite of such.

Yeah, it teaches the opposite. But it doesn't seem to have learned the opposite. It certainly doesn't do the opposite.

The Vatican isn't exactly an exemplar of the alleged virtues of poverty and humility.

Nothing says "poverty and humility" better than claiming to speak woth the authority of God from your throne in a city-sized palace encrusted with gold and jewels.

I knew eventually someone would show their hand.

P. Most people are religious.
P. Religion is stupid
C. Therefore most people....

But the goal of religion(s) is overwhelmingly to promote ethics and human happiness.

No, the goal is to gain power and wealth for religious leaders.

This can be determined by the simple expedient of observing that ethics and human happiness are frequently disregarded, even by devoutly religious people; While religious leaders are always wealthy and/or powerful by comparison to other members of their community.

And natural selection has given religion its imprimatur insofar as conferring a survival advantage.

Having powerful leaders is indeed an evolutionary benefit for tribal societies.

 

[bilby]

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. First, stupid people can make correct conclusions.

That would mean their decision was smart - not stupid. This is contrary to the claim they are stupid.

Nope. Getting the right answer for the wrong reasons is even stupider than just getting the wrong answer, because it encourages further stupidity.

 

[DBT]

Rational enough to build cathedrals and temples to imaginary gods, whom we worship and pray to. Rational enough to divide ourselves according to politics, ideology, race and colour. Rational enough to destroy ecosystems while chasing profit, forming divisions in class, power and wealth, where many struggle for the basics in life while others are richer than nation states.......

Building cathedrals and temples is NOT the goal of religions.

No, but it is one of the tools of trade.

Terrestrial politics, racial division, mammon worship, power, greed, 'othering' is not the wheelhouse of religion. The largest religion in the world teaches the exact opposite of such.

I knew eventually someone would show their hand.

P. Most people are religious.
P. Religion is stupid
C. Therefore most people....

But the goal of religion(s) is overwhelmingly to promote ethics and human happiness. And natural selection has given religion its imprimatur insofar as conferring a survival advantage.

The goals of religion are manifold, promoting social rules and moral behaviour is one of them, a fine goal, but one that does not exclude benefits for the hierarchy, wealth, status, power.

The evidence for this is to be found throughout our history and in current time. Just look at Kenneth Copeland, someone who is not unique in Evangelism as an example.

 

[Lion IRC]

@Spacetime Inhabitant

Are you saying this thread isn't visible to you?

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

Speak for yourself. You might have good reason to think that. But please speak for yourself. Or should I say 'yourselves' ? (Lemme check who clicked 'like' on your post.) I strongly disagree that humans are "very inclined" towards mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity. You...

iidb.org

 

[TomC]

Again. I'm not arguing that nobody is ever inclined to...wage a crusade, support Nazism, eat people, join the Ku Klux Klan...

How about I modify your list a bit.
Crusades, Nazism, Ku Klux Klan, and the Teaparty.
All of those were the results of human choices that accumulated because they were/are popular with the majority at the time. But let's face it, Hitler had to trash a ton of European civilization to become seriously unpopular.

And I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on the US or Christian culture, it's just what I happen to know about.

Take something minor like our epidemic of obesity. It's quite irrational for a person who is overweight to eat a dessert. Or French fries. Or anything resembling those high calorie low nutrition foods. But it happens all the time. It's easy for me to see the irrational behavior because it's not a problem I'm inclined towards. But I know a bunch of people who pay ridiculous amounts of money for stuff like Ozempic or bariatric surgery or whatever rather than do something rational, like letting me pick their food. It's not because they are evil or anything. It's because humans are not that rational. We operate hugely by instincts and habits and self-centered immediate gratification. It's just plain human nature. Whether God made us this way or evolution that's just how it is.

If Abrahamic God exists, He is apparently either a poor designer or enjoys human suffering. I find a god that just doesn't care about anything far more plausible. To me, the Real "Problem Of Evil" is human nature. Not disease or weather disasters, it's the irrational choices people make believing it's in their own best interests at the moment of the choice.
Tom

 

[Lion IRC]

How about I modify your list a bit.
Crusades, Nazism, Ku Klux Klan, and the Teaparty.

Why do you persist in posting examples of stuff most people find abhorrent?

Stuff that most people are NOT VERY INCLINED to approve of.

 

[Jarhyn]

How about I modify your list a bit.
Crusades, Nazism, Ku Klux Klan, and the Teaparty.

Why do you persist in posting examples of stuff most people find abhorrent?

Stuff that most people are NOT VERY INCLINED to approve of.

I don't know what planet you are living on, but in the reality I can readily observe, plenty of people are inclined to approve of those things.

If they weren't, the country wouldn't have The Authoritarian Orange on the ballot.

 

[TomC]

How about I modify your list a bit.
Crusades, Nazism, Ku Klux Klan, and the Teaparty.

Why do you persist in posting examples of stuff most people find abhorrent?

Stuff that most people are NOT VERY INCLINED to approve of.

Did you read anything else in my post?

The reason that so many groups like the ones we're naming (around the globe and throughout history) is because we humans are very inclined towards violent tribalism.

Most of us prefer not to actually see it happen or participate personally, but that's not a moral evaluation so much as squeamishness. Overall, as a group, humans are very inclined towards violent tribalism.
Tom

 

[pood]

Most of us prefer not to actually see it happen or participate personally, but that's not a moral evaluation so much as squeamishness. Overall, as a group, humans are very inclined towards violent tribalism.
Tom

What Lion doesn’t want to face is that we among the Great Apes, all of whom are inclined toward violent tribalism, including bonobos, as noted in another thread with a link to how male bonobos are even more aggressive than male chimps. I’d guess he doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution, perhaps not even in an old earth, but so far, to my knowledge, he hasn’t revealed his beliefs on this matter.