We are built to be kind

[Angry Floof]

I'd like to think we are built to be kind but I really doubt it.

We have to teach children to be kind. We don't have to teach them to be cruel or unkind.

Is this a joke? Or do you really believe this?

Having watched my daughter grow up and sent many nephews/nieces, children of friends etc. it is a constant watch to ensure that they do know and behave in a kindly matter. It does not take much to have their display behaviour that is unkind or cruel.

Have you asked yourself what behaviors they are seeing around them? Young children imitate, but they also show an innate sense of morality and justice.

Another point. Aggression is also taught and learned. Remember the baboons that lost all their aggressive males through food poisoning, and then the younger males were not conditioned to aggression and therefore were not aggressive? Life became very peaceful for that group of baboons after that.

Also, as Canard said, without the capacity for empathy and kindness in our mammal nature, we would have no concept of empathy and kindness to teach in the first place. We don't make up our nature. Life and evolution do. Our nature informs our concepts, not the other way around.

Humans have the capacity for a wide array of behaviors based in instinctive animal brain urges. Human cultures do reinforce some behaviors and suppress others and tendencies vary, but those animal urges are still part of our nature, and that mammalian urge toward closeness to other humans is just as basic as aggression.

In fact, I'd argue it's even more basic and essential. Aggression is not even needed until conflict or threats arise, but the drive to closeness is enjoyed all the time, as comforts in stressful times and just ordinary joys for the sheer pleasure of it in peaceful times.

 

[Angry Floof]

Stanford Prison Experiment, anyone?

That is a specific context of a small number of humans holding other humans captive. That is a whole psychology in itself that is not necessarily present in just any given group of human beings. That's a specific environment where some are granted authority over others who are deemed criminal and they are stripped of autonomy. These constructs exacerbate the capacity for aggression. You're talking about a learned or contrived situation.

The punishment mentality and capacity for power to be corrupted into cruelty is obviously a reality of human nature, but is not a given. You need specific conditions for that to flourish. And even then, kindness and empathy will eventually rise up and dismantle that cruel authority, or die trying.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So why are you so angry all the time then, Floof? Maybe you should try being kind for a change.

Kind_Floof is a sweet lady who lives in a parallel universe. Maybe if we discover a way to shift between the two...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'd like to think we are built to be kind but I really doubt it.

We have to teach children to be kind. We don't have to teach them to be cruel or unkind.

We have innate ability for both. Children do both naturally. Children are taught to do both. It isn't a binary thing, all one or the other. Its both.

 

[Valjean]

Don’t misread Darwin: for humans, ‘survival of the fittest’ means being sympathetic

Aggression and tribalism are not the only superpowers in the human behavioral repertoire, and in fact, it is imperative that our aggressive, tribalistic tendencies take a back seat to compassion and cooperation in this new environment we have created.

We are a global tribe of seven billion now, like it or not. Because of technology, we are no longer isolated groups. This is not opinion. It is reality. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks or feels about that. This is the environment we are adapting to, and it is an environment that our brains did not evolve in.

A "tribe" remains a small community; an "us." There is no 7B tribe. We have the same Pleistocene brains our ancestors did. Dunbar still defines the psychological limit of "us."

Within tribes, there is intense solidarity and altruism, but moral obligation doesn't necessarily extend beyond this. As our tumultuous history has shown, we're competitive, and quite adept at dehumanizing "the other."

But we are nothing if not plastic. Adaptability is our superpower, and our tools of survival are now cooperation and compassion, not tribalism and aggression, which do nothing but cause suffering and war. And there is no one left to be at war with. We're one big tribe now, and there is no getting around that without massive, global atrocity.

The way to achieve peace and well being of a tribe of seven billion lies in our ancient mammal empathy.

But we're not naturally a cosmopolitan species. We have to be taught to extend compassion beyond our own tribe, and such socialization is a thin veneer.

Dick waving apes, stand aside. Your drive to compete, fight, conquer, and dominate are obsolete, no longer relevant to the survival and prosperity of our species.

That may be so, but we still feel it.
So intense and pleasurable is our tribalism that we'll form artificial tribes, Like the Boston Red Sox, with artificial rivals, Like the NY Yankees, with absolutely no objective differences, and support them rabidly, just to reproduce the tribal solidarity and warfare our species so loves.

 

[JohnG]

I've recently come across the term paleoconservatism - it's a pro christian, isolationist, nationalist (anti-immigrant), anti-state flavor of conservatism whose philosophy is that society must mirror our "true" selves - competitive, dog-eat-dog, TV survivor like species that strives for dominance.

Trumpism basically.

We haven't lived like that since before we were primates. Tribal skirmishes came about sure, but cooperatives are what ensured survival. Further, modern post agricultural civilization pretty much cemented us as a cooperative species.

Even free markets rely on a sense of cooperation to make them work. Personal greed is what ruins them. Sports are the same, take away the rules of conduct and it's chaos.

 

[JohnG]

Like the Boston Red Sox, with artificial rivals, Like the NY Yankees, with absolutely no objective differences, and support them rabidly, just to reproduce the tribal solidarity and warfare our species so loves.

In sports, all must agree on a code of conduct and cooperate within an established set of rules.

 

[Angry Floof]

A "tribe" remains a small community; an "us." There is no 7B tribe. We have the same Pleistocene brains our ancestors did. Dunbar still defines the psychological limit of "us."

Within tribes, there is intense solidarity and altruism, but moral obligation doesn't necessarily extend beyond this. As our tumultuous history has shown, we're competitive, and quite adept at dehumanizing "the other."

But we're not naturally a cosmopolitan species. We have to be taught to extend compassion beyond our own tribe, and such socialization is a thin veneer.

Dick waving apes, stand aside. Your drive to compete, fight, conquer, and dominate are obsolete, no longer relevant to the survival and prosperity of our species.

That may be so, but we still feel it.
So intense and pleasurable is our tribalism that we'll form artificial tribes, Like the Boston Red Sox, with artificial rivals, Like the NY Yankees, with absolutely no objective differences, and support them rabidly, just to reproduce the tribal solidarity and warfare our species so loves.

Well, all that is what I'm talking about. We did not evolve in this environment that we now live in, and yet we must adapt if we want to survive. And we are nothing if not adaptable. Our brains might want to confine our interests to a small monkeysphere, but these same brains are also plastic, and capable of self awareness, and of reengineering themselves, and most of all, capable of deep empathy and incredible feats of cooperation.

Our kids are born into this tribe of seven billion. They're born into awareness of global connectivity. It's their environment, in spite of the stresses of their old, small-group brains. As I said, we are nothing if not adaptable, and we are intelligent enough to see that as a connected, global community, there is no good reason for tribalism. There is no "them" anymore. The struggle is just as you imply - a deeply ingrained urge to separate ourselves from people we think we don't know and this, what we are doing right now, ordinary people talking about adapting to a tribe of seven billion.

I think more than anything, negativity bias (we're doomed!) and personal bias (but this is the view I'm used to and I like being right!) are the only real obstacles to adapting to a group identity of seven billion.

If humanity were an individual person, they'd be trying all the usual defenses and finding that they don't work anymore, might have the wherewithal to try something else.

But of course, humanity isn't an individual, and as Canard said earlier, evolution is smarter than any individual. There's no way of knowing how we will end up adapting to our new environment of one massive tribe with no "them" to pose a threat, but there's no doubt that we will (or die out). I think I tend to be more optimistic than most given that we are still here after eons of evolution in spite of our distorted estimations of our own intelligence.

 

[Toni]

A "tribe" remains a small community; an "us." There is no 7B tribe. We have the same Pleistocene brains our ancestors did. Dunbar still defines the psychological limit of "us."

Within tribes, there is intense solidarity and altruism, but moral obligation doesn't necessarily extend beyond this. As our tumultuous history has shown, we're competitive, and quite adept at dehumanizing "the other."

But we're not naturally a cosmopolitan species. We have to be taught to extend compassion beyond our own tribe, and such socialization is a thin veneer.

Dick waving apes, stand aside. Your drive to compete, fight, conquer, and dominate are obsolete, no longer relevant to the survival and prosperity of our species.

That may be so, but we still feel it.
So intense and pleasurable is our tribalism that we'll form artificial tribes, Like the Boston Red Sox, with artificial rivals, Like the NY Yankees, with absolutely no objective differences, and support them rabidly, just to reproduce the tribal solidarity and warfare our species so loves.

Well, all that is what I'm talking about. We did not evolve in this environment that we now live in, and yet we must adapt if we want to survive. And we are nothing if not adaptable. Our brains might want to confine our interests to a small monkeysphere, but these same brains are also plastic, and capable of self awareness, and of reengineering themselves, and most of all, capable of deep empathy and incredible feats of cooperation.

Our kids are born into this tribe of seven billion. They're born into awareness of global connectivity. It's their environment, in spite of the stresses of their old, small-group brains. As I said, we are nothing if not adaptable, and we are intelligent enough to see that as a connected, global community, there is no good reason for tribalism. There is no "them" anymore. The struggle is just as you imply - a deeply ingrained urge to separate ourselves from people we think we don't know and this, what we are doing right now, ordinary people talking about adapting to a tribe of seven billion.

I think more than anything, negativity bias (we're doomed!) and personal bias (but this is the view I'm used to and I like being right!) are the only real obstacles to adapting to a group identity of seven billion.

If humanity were an individual person, they'd be trying all the usual defenses and finding that they don't work anymore, might have the wherewithal to try something else.

But of course, humanity isn't an individual, and as Canard said earlier, evolution is smarter than any individual. There's no way of knowing how we will end up adapting to our new environment of one massive tribe with no "them" to pose a threat, but there's no doubt that we will (or die out). I think I tend to be more optimistic than most given that we are still here after eons of evolution in spite of our distorted estimations of our own intelligence.

Well, I will add that there seems to be an innate desire to find others who most closely resemble ourselves. We anthropomorphize many animals and even some inanimate objects. Ask most adopted persons who reconnect with their genetic relatives and they will say that they look for similarities, for a sense of belonging with that person and that was something that they always felt missing no matter how wonderful their adoptive parents and their lives. When people meet baby for the first time, it is almost programmed into us to look at how they do or do not resemble their parents or grandparents or siblings or great uncle or whatever. I love looking at other people's family albums, even and maybe especially if they contain images of individuals who I don't know, who lived long ago. I like looking for similar characteristics.

It's not limited to physical characteristics. I look at my own family and then at the family I produced and I can see how the introverts contributed to producing the current generation of introverts, the extroverts contributed to new extroverts, even preferences for things like music or art or math or science or literature or history...

I also think that as a species, we crave a certain amount of intimacy (aside from sexual intimacy). It's hard to find intimacy with millions or even thousands or hundreds of others. Which might be why large cities (and small ones) tend to form neighborhoods which are in many ways unique.

I think that we need to learn not to fear others, not to fear those who are unlike ourselves and not to just be comfortable with those who are 'like us.' And also to quit fighting with those who are like us (siblings, anyone?) and those who are different.

 

[Angry Floof]

Well, all that is what I'm talking about. We did not evolve in this environment that we now live in, and yet we must adapt if we want to survive. And we are nothing if not adaptable. Our brains might want to confine our interests to a small monkeysphere, but these same brains are also plastic, and capable of self awareness, and of reengineering themselves, and most of all, capable of deep empathy and incredible feats of cooperation.

Our kids are born into this tribe of seven billion. They're born into awareness of global connectivity. It's their environment, in spite of the stresses of their old, small-group brains. As I said, we are nothing if not adaptable, and we are intelligent enough to see that as a connected, global community, there is no good reason for tribalism. There is no "them" anymore. The struggle is just as you imply - a deeply ingrained urge to separate ourselves from people we think we don't know and this, what we are doing right now, ordinary people talking about adapting to a tribe of seven billion.

I think more than anything, negativity bias (we're doomed!) and personal bias (but this is the view I'm used to and I like being right!) are the only real obstacles to adapting to a group identity of seven billion.

If humanity were an individual person, they'd be trying all the usual defenses and finding that they don't work anymore, might have the wherewithal to try something else.

But of course, humanity isn't an individual, and as Canard said earlier, evolution is smarter than any individual. There's no way of knowing how we will end up adapting to our new environment of one massive tribe with no "them" to pose a threat, but there's no doubt that we will (or die out). I think I tend to be more optimistic than most given that we are still here after eons of evolution in spite of our distorted estimations of our own intelligence.

Well, I will add that there seems to be an innate desire to find others who most closely resemble ourselves. We anthropomorphize many animals and even some inanimate objects. Ask most adopted persons who reconnect with their genetic relatives and they will say that they look for similarities, for a sense of belonging with that person and that was something that they always felt missing no matter how wonderful their adoptive parents and their lives. When people meet baby for the first time, it is almost programmed into us to look at how they do or do not resemble their parents or grandparents or siblings or great uncle or whatever. I love looking at other people's family albums, even and maybe especially if they contain images of individuals who I don't know, who lived long ago. I like looking for similar characteristics.

It's not limited to physical characteristics. I look at my own family and then at the family I produced and I can see how the introverts contributed to producing the current generation of introverts, the extroverts contributed to new extroverts, even preferences for things like music or art or math or science or literature or history...

I also think that as a species, we crave a certain amount of intimacy (aside from sexual intimacy). It's hard to find intimacy with millions or even thousands or hundreds of others. Which might be why large cities (and small ones) tend to form neighborhoods which are in many ways unique.

I think that we need to learn not to fear others, not to fear those who are unlike ourselves and not to just be comfortable with those who are 'like us.' And also to quit fighting with those who are like us (siblings, anyone?) and those who are different.

Right. And so it seems that those of us who recognize the humanness in everyone are the ones who are best equipped to cooperate and envision and enact what the tribalists among us cannot. It's not a huge leap of intellect to recognize that any other group identity we might hold other than "human" is not the most important. And for a lot of us, all it takes is the suggestion that this is so. The biggest obstacle to that is tribalistic religion that insists on the ideology being the most basic and important group identity, and that shit's not even real.

Our humanness is real. It's our basic identity as a species, and I think we have created a world where it's not only possible but probable that we will adapt to that global group identity in the same way that in the past we have adapted to smaller group identities - that's just the people who were around us. Now, everybody's around everybody almost, virtually.

The environment that gave rise to tribalism no longer exists, the one where a group could go for generations without having to confront another group or feel threatened by them. We just don't live there anymore. We are all products of our cultures and environments. What we eat and bump into in our day to day lives is what shapes us, not just beliefs from the past, as influential as those might be sometimes.

Exposure is the cure for bigotry. It's not guaranteed, though. It might mean deadly culture clash before anything like empathetic understanding can develop, but at least we know that we do have the capacity for empathy, and mammals tend to prefer peace.

Our current tribalistic tendency is a holdover. There's literally no need for it in this modern age. It's a bad habit at this point. The only question is whether or not the powers that perpetuate tribalism on a large scale will be able to continue to do so.

 

[southernhybrid]

It does seem as if some of us are more tribal than others. I love the diversity of humanity. I go out of my way to interact with people who might be of a different culture or race than myself. I even embrace religious people, despite my personal thoughts about their beliefs. But, there are others who seem to thrive on hating those who are different from themselves. I was so naive as a teenager that during the civil rights movement of the 60s, I really thought that racism would come to an end in my lifetime, but I was wrong. Hatred and divisiveness have risen to a level I haven't seen in my lifetime. Perhaps that's because of social media where people feel as if they are anonymous and they let their worst inner thoughts come out?

I hate to be so pessimistic, but look at how people act when there are shortages of food or other necessities. It's easy enough to live among a wide variety of people when everyone has the basic necessities of life. But, it's not nearly as easy when people don't have those basics. I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's complicated.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Jon Haidt's book "Righteous Mind" examines empathy and tribalism together. The idea is that the more tribal you are the more empathetic you are towards members of your own tribe, and that the less tribal you are, the less empathy you have generally. Almost like empathy is a limited resource that you can spread thin or concentrate for a few. I'm not sure how the research has supported or undone this idea, but its an interesting claim.

 

[Angry Floof]

It does seem as if some of us are more tribal than others. I love the diversity of humanity. I go out of my way to interact with people who might be of a different culture or race than myself. I even embrace religious people, despite my personal thoughts about their beliefs. But, there are others who seem to thrive on hating those who are different from themselves. I was so naive as a teenager that during the civil rights movement of the 60s, I really thought that racism would come to an end in my lifetime, but I was wrong. Hatred and divisiveness have risen to a level I haven't seen in my lifetime. Perhaps that's because of social media where people feel as if they are anonymous and they let their worst inner thoughts come out?

I hate to be so pessimistic, but look at how people act when there are shortages of food or other necessities. It's easy enough to live among a wide variety of people when everyone has the basic necessities of life. But, it's not nearly as easy when people don't have those basics. I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's complicated.

I would argue that you can also look at how people act when there are shortages of food or other necessities and they end up helping each other and cooperating to solve problems.

Animal brain aggression simply is not our only choice and it's not even necessarily the strongest or most likely reflex to stress or threat. Negativity bias might suggest otherwise, though, and negativity bias is a very strong influence over our perceptions.

 

[southernhybrid]

It does seem as if some of us are more tribal than others. I love the diversity of humanity. I go out of my way to interact with people who might be of a different culture or race than myself. I even embrace religious people, despite my personal thoughts about their beliefs. But, there are others who seem to thrive on hating those who are different from themselves. I was so naive as a teenager that during the civil rights movement of the 60s, I really thought that racism would come to an end in my lifetime, but I was wrong. Hatred and divisiveness have risen to a level I haven't seen in my lifetime. Perhaps that's because of social media where people feel as if they are anonymous and they let their worst inner thoughts come out?

I hate to be so pessimistic, but look at how people act when there are shortages of food or other necessities. It's easy enough to live among a wide variety of people when everyone has the basic necessities of life. But, it's not nearly as easy when people don't have those basics. I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's complicated.

I would argue that you can also look at how people act when there are shortages of food or other necessities and they end up helping each other and cooperating to solve problems.

Animal brain aggression simply is not our only choice and it's not even necessarily the strongest or most likely reflex to stress or threat. Negativity bias might suggest otherwise, though, and negativity bias is a very strong influence over our perceptions.

Yes. There are times when people do act that way, but those people usually come from the same "tribe", for lack of a better word. When a drought or famine impacts a huge number of people, they don't tend to cooperate very well. That's why I said it's complicated. Another factor is brain wiring. I read several years ago, that due to the technology that we now have that enables us to view the human brain, psychopathy is an actual frontal lobe disorder. So far, there is no treatment for psychopathy. Psychopathy doesn't always include violent tendencies, but it does include a total lack of empathy. It can be exhibited by unlimited greed, taking advantage of others through devious means etc. I have wondered how many political leaders suffer from this disorder, aka sociopathy. I'd love to believe there is a way to overcome a lack of empathy, but I just don't feel very optimistic considering what's happening in the world these days.

But, when people are suffering, thirsty and hungry enough, they often resort to violence to get enough for their own families, without any concern for others. Sometimes they will even kill someone in their own group in order to survive. I guess I have a hard time thinking there is hope for humanity. Look at how the sociopath in the WH has been able to successfully manipulate such a large percentage of our population. I wonder if an MRI of his brain would reveal some frontal lobe defect. Hmmmm. It might be interesting....

 

[Valjean]

Like the Boston Red Sox, with artificial rivals, Like the NY Yankees, with absolutely no objective differences, and support them rabidly, just to reproduce the tribal solidarity and warfare our species so loves.

In sports, all must agree on a code of conduct and cooperate within an established set of rules.

As in warfare or tribal skirmishes.

 

[Angry Floof]

Like the Boston Red Sox, with artificial rivals, Like the NY Yankees, with absolutely no objective differences, and support them rabidly, just to reproduce the tribal solidarity and warfare our species so loves.

In sports, all must agree on a code of conduct and cooperate within an established set of rules.

As in warfare or tribal skirmishes.

I agree with Noam Chomsky that sports fandom is just training in irrational jingoism. The sportsmanship philosophy is pretty, though, the way the Beatitudes are pretty. Nice on the surface, but the visceral animal brain being conditioned beneath the veneer doesn't really care.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Jon Haidt's book "Righteous Mind" examines empathy and tribalism together. The idea is that the more tribal you are the more empathetic you are towards members of your own tribe, and that the less tribal you are, the less empathy you have generally. Almost like empathy is a limited resource that you can spread thin or concentrate for a few. I'm not sure how the research has supported or undone this idea, but its an interesting claim.

Also, empathy works by seeing yourself in others. This explains how racism and other othering is a thing, and why it gets worse the more identity politics are pushed. We should instead keep a focus on what we have in common, that we have shared values etc.

Even bigotry and discrimination can be addressed this way. Nobody likes to be discriminated against and everybody to at least some extent has experienced it (yes, some far more than others). That can be drawn on to get them to stop doing it or to defend others from it.

 

[RVonse]

Interesting. And I think there is some movement there in mate-choosing.

Interesting aside - “The Gate to Women’s Country” is a great dystopian novel about the differences between the cooperative imperatives of women and the dick swinging ape mentality. Highly reccomend. We enjoyed it as one of our selections for our mother-and-teen book club.

So glad to know there are other fans.

I might be reaching here. But it appears that you, Rhea, and Floof (the OP) are all in agreement that compassion and empathy are good! Oh and please correct me if I am wrong, but all 3 of you appear to be women as well. How fitting that is....and how great for all of mankind that is! Women who say the world needs more compassion! The best part is that there is no one more capable to influence the future more than you 3 can.

If women want the world more compassionate all they need do produce kids by men who are compassionate. Its as simple as that! You want docile kids then find the docile biological fathers and get to work.

But women will never pick those kind of bed partners obviously. Because type B partners are really nothing close to what women really want. But thats all that needs to be done if you want future generations to be more type B and less type A.

Spread the word to your sisters.

 

[Elixir]

To address the evolutionary aspect of altruism/tribalism... I would expect that a wholesale reduction of humans' genetic disposition toward tribalism, would require several cycles of near-extinction events where most of the bellicose - or the most bellicose - sectors of the global population are virtually wiped out. I don't see an adequately selective disaster anywhere in the making, let alone a series of them. So I'm not buying the thesis that altruism/empathy is a rising power.