4 ms·

Side info - here is the major recent revelation about human nature that is backed by the largest social study of its kind: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a

Side info - here is the major recent revelation about human nature that is backed by the largest social study of its kind: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-...

int_19h 4y ago
This isn't new - ethologists have been making similar conclusions about altruism for a long time now, including studies on very young children (which show that it kicks in somewhere around 2-3 years of age). The catch is that said altruism is rather strongly affected by parochiality, meaning that it's weaker towards the outgroup, and conflict of interests between the ingroup and the outgroup tends to override it.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > ethologists have been making similar conclusions about altruism for a long time now However those conclusions were not backed by such a large and objective, replicable study that had a good control group. > The catch is that said altruism is rather strongly affected by parochiality, meaning that it's weaker towards the outgroup, and conflict of interests between the ingroup Nope. If you read the details, you will note that such divisions do not have the importance people think they have. Any group they created from random people behaved the same way. The even more reveling concluson was this: When they gave people time to think, education, upbringing started to kick in and people started making selfish decisions. Which points out that the selfishness that is seen in our society is not something natural or instinctive - its man-made.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    This one study doesn't show parochiality, but plenty of those preceding it did, including those for young children. So I wouldn't rush to conclusions here.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      Actually, I would. This is the only objective study that has this size and uses actually measurable criteria and looks into the issue in a fundamental level - even while using adults.

int_19h 4y ago

This isn't new - ethologists have been making similar conclusions about altruism for a long time now, including studies on very young children (which show that it kicks in somewhere around 2-3 years of age). The catch is that said altruism is rather strongly affected by parochiality, meaning that it's weaker towards the outgroup, and conflict of interests between the ingroup and the outgroup tends to override it.

unity1001 4y ago
> ethologists have been making similar conclusions about altruism for a long time now However those conclusions were not backed by such a large and objective, replicable study that had a good control group. > The catch is that said altruism is rather strongly affected by parochiality, meaning that it's weaker towards the outgroup, and conflict of interests between the ingroup Nope. If you read the details, you will note that such divisions do not have the importance people think they have. Any group they created from random people behaved the same way. The even more reveling concluson was this: When they gave people time to think, education, upbringing started to kick in and people started making selfish decisions. Which points out that the selfishness that is seen in our society is not something natural or instinctive - its man-made.
- int_19h 4y ago
  This one study doesn't show parochiality, but plenty of those preceding it did, including those for young children. So I wouldn't rush to conclusions here.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    Actually, I would. This is the only objective study that has this size and uses actually measurable criteria and looks into the issue in a fundamental level - even while using adults.