4 ms·

I see no way this article will lead to a useful comment section on HN, but I'd like to throw in my 0.02 that "human nature" is not fixed - we are social mammals

I see no way this article will lead to a useful comment section on HN, but I'd like to throw in my 0.02 that "human nature" is not fixed - we are social mammals that are made of stories and shaped by complex webs of inter-dependencies and cultural learnings among other things. In short humans are made, not born, and the socioeconomic systems they live within can create different humans.

dgellow 7y ago
That's called the "blank slate" (aka _tabula rasa_ in latin) theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa You might be interested by Pinker's take on it, in his book "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate. The topic can be quite polemic though, not all academic fields (and of course not all academics) share a consensus on what should be attributed or not to biology and/or culture. Still, I personally enjoyed the perspective he shared in his writing and recommend the book. Even if you don't agree with his thesis it's a good way to understand other point of views on such polarizing subjects.
Kalium 7y ago
You're right! A lot of what people mean when they say "human nature" is cultural and social, a product of stories we tell another. These are things can can, have been, and will continue to be changed. That said, there do appear to be some things that are not wholly learned. So perhaps it might be worth considering that humans are not wholly blank slates, to be formatted and molded to our infinite convenience. Again, you're absolutely right. Humans are made of stories and culture learnings and more! It just might be worth considering that complex low-hair plains apes might not be born pure and clean, waiting for any old arbirary formatting to come along.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
Humans are born and made. We are humans in part through evolution. Concepts like fairness are actually hard-coded in us (cannot find a reference at the minute but I remember reading research on this) : we evolved to live in a group and we are sensitive about how work and benefits of work are shared in the group. E.g. if we spent efforts and time growing crops we will 'naturally' object to giving the produce away or to share it with someone who didn't adequately contribute or who don't somehow help us in exchange. There are also other evolved biological aspects at play like seeking our own survival and that of our offsprings over that of other, unrelated individuals. So we also 'naturally' have a tendency to self-interest (which extends to relatives). All of these are directly relevant when attempting to create a socialist society.
- llamataboot 7y ago
  I could equally say we evolved to live in a group and therefore we tend to be highly concerned with inequality and fairness - often we value relative equality even more than we would value a higher standard of living - see The Spirit Level, etc, so we would be predisposed towards being happier in various socialisms (and indeed we do see happiness higher in general in industrial countries with stronger social safety nets/social welfare programs)
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    We do value fairness, as I mentioned. Equality of outcomes is not fairness, and it seems obvious that we don't naturally tend to value it as much or at all (see also actual results as discussed in the article, and more generally in countries that attempted to setup socialism). In fact equality of outcomes is fundamentally unfair. Social welfare is not the same as socialism at all. That's a common misrepresentation.

dgellow 7y ago

That's called the "blank slate" (aka _tabula rasa_ in latin) theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa You might be interested by Pinker's take on it, in his book "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate. The topic can be quite polemic though, not all academic fields (and of course not all academics) share a consensus on what should be attributed or not to biology and/or culture. Still, I personally enjoyed the perspective he shared in his writing and recommend the book. Even if you don't agree with his thesis it's a good way to understand other point of views on such polarizing subjects.

Kalium 7y ago

You're right! A lot of what people mean when they say "human nature" is cultural and social, a product of stories we tell another. These are things can can, have been, and will continue to be changed. That said, there do appear to be some things that are not wholly learned. So perhaps it might be worth considering that humans are not wholly blank slates, to be formatted and molded to our infinite convenience. Again, you're absolutely right. Humans are made of stories and culture learnings and more! It just might be worth considering that complex low-hair plains apes might not be born pure and clean, waiting for any old arbirary formatting to come along.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

Humans are born and made. We are humans in part through evolution. Concepts like fairness are actually hard-coded in us (cannot find a reference at the minute but I remember reading research on this) : we evolved to live in a group and we are sensitive about how work and benefits of work are shared in the group. E.g. if we spent efforts and time growing crops we will 'naturally' object to giving the produce away or to share it with someone who didn't adequately contribute or who don't somehow help us in exchange. There are also other evolved biological aspects at play like seeking our own survival and that of our offsprings over that of other, unrelated individuals. So we also 'naturally' have a tendency to self-interest (which extends to relatives). All of these are directly relevant when attempting to create a socialist society.

llamataboot 7y ago
I could equally say we evolved to live in a group and therefore we tend to be highly concerned with inequality and fairness - often we value relative equality even more than we would value a higher standard of living - see The Spirit Level, etc, so we would be predisposed towards being happier in various socialisms (and indeed we do see happiness higher in general in industrial countries with stronger social safety nets/social welfare programs)
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  We do value fairness, as I mentioned. Equality of outcomes is not fairness, and it seems obvious that we don't naturally tend to value it as much or at all (see also actual results as discussed in the article, and more generally in countries that attempted to setup socialism). In fact equality of outcomes is fundamentally unfair. Social welfare is not the same as socialism at all. That's a common misrepresentation.