Socialism - Politics & Religion - Forums : Best Ever Albums

Defago
Your Most Favorite User

Gender: Male
Age: 31
Location: Lima

Jasonconfused wrote:

I just reread this and I have to strongly disagree with you here. We're rational? always? or do you mean we have the ability to use reason? What about the notion of faith that so man people in the world put their belief in. Faith is often the complete opposite of reason. As far as there being some inherent selfishness in humans that cannot be changed, I don't see how that's true. That's like saying that racism is essential to human nature. Society makes ideas like that seem natural and acceptable. Slavery was once seen as acceptable and actually encouraged, not to mention justified by junk science which I think you are applying here.

We're rational as individuals in the sense we always choose the option which we perceive will bring us the greatest benefits, always. Regardless of you thinking religion is valid or not, you can only judge a religious person's actions as "reasonable" or "not reasonable" in the economic sense by taking into consideration all his beliefs and memories and experiences and so on.

We're selfish as individuals in the sense we always worry about our own necessities before worrying about the necessities of the rest. Being selfish is not something bad in itself, it's the extremes which are more worrying. Also, slavery and racism are NOT comparable with selfishness. Every single person in this world puts his well being before that of others, ceteris paribus. I'm not saying everyone cuts in line or shit like that, that's being a douchebag. I'm saying you're not gonna give your place in line to other people, because you value your time more than you value theirs. This is not to say people are completely selfish either, there's a reason people help each other out - I'd gladly let a kindly old granny or a guy who looks like he's in a real hurry go before me.

We're also impatient and fearful - meaning we'd rather get benefits now than later and risk reduces our happiness. These are all standard economic terms which are assumed true by default in most economic discussions.

Quote:

not to mention justified by junk science which I think you are applying here

I'm going to ask you to speak clearly here before I respond. I could be misreading what you said, in which case I would be ranting for nothing.

ButterThumbz
I always used to wonder if she wore false ears

Gender: Male
Age: 53
Location: O'er the hills and far away

Defago wrote:

We're rational as individuals in the sense we always choose the option which we perceive will bring us the greatest benefits, always.

What? Is that what you really believe? I'd say even those of us who accept that we are largely irrational still overestimate the amount of time we actually spend behaving rationally. Where else do you suppose all that impatience and fearfulness come from?

Defago
Your Most Favorite User

Gender: Male
Age: 31
Location: Lima

ButterThumbz wrote:

What? Is that what you really believe? I'd say even those of us who accept that we are largely irrational still overestimate the amount of time we actually spend behaving rationally. Where else do you suppose all that impatience and fearfulness come from?

Defago wrote:

We're rational as individuals in the sense we always choose the option which we perceive will bring us the greatest benefits, always.

I can't think of any case in which someone does something which he perceives is not the best option for him. Care to give examples?

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

There's a lot here you're asking to accept as "default" so I think we disagree on a very fundamental level.
_________________

ButterThumbz
I always used to wonder if she wore false ears

Gender: Male
Age: 53
Location: O'er the hills and far away

Defago wrote:

I can't think of any case in which someone does something which he perceives is not the best option for him. Care to give examples?

My point is that it's the perception which is irrational, this cannot lead to rational decision making. Politicians rely on their ability to stir up our feelings with hyperbole. Just today, Cameron made an announcement proposing benefit restrictions on migrant workers because opinion poles show that's what the British public want to hear, while completely ignoring that fact that there is no evidence to suggest that it is even a problem.

Why would Alex Salmond choose the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn to hold a referendum on Scottish independence if people's decisions were always rational?

Last edited by ButterThumbz on 11/28/2013 20:12; edited 2 times in total

Guest

Defago wrote:

I can't think of any case in which someone does something which he perceives is not the best option for him. Care to give examples?

You don't have children do you?

Most parents will put the needs of their children above their own...even if that means going without themselves or depriving themselves in some way. In my own family, my father chose my education over his basic food and clothing needs, I have also see plenty of families chose to feed their children over themselves when there is a shortage. This is not the best option for the adult but it is the default setting of most parents.

Defago
Your Most Favorite User

Gender: Male
Age: 31
Location: Lima

Jasonconfused wrote:

There's a lot here you're asking to accept as "default" so I think we disagree on a very fundamental level.

lol ok

ButterThumbz wrote:

My point is that it's the perception which is irrational, this cannot lead to rational decision making. Politicians rely on their ability to stir up our feelings with hyperbole. Just today, Cameron made an announcement proposing benefit restrictions on migrant workers because opinion poles show that's what the British public want to hear, while completely ignoring that fact that there is no evidence to suggest that it is even a problem.

Why would Alex Salmond choose the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn to hold a referendum on Scottish independence if people's decisions were always rational?

Rationality doesn't depend on whether you agree with it. Cameron made a choice according to what he perceives and believes. It was the best possible decision in his mind. You would've chosen differently, because you perceive and believe differently, and have different memories, opinions and upbringing.

I don't know who Alex Salmond is, what the Battle of Bannockburn was or anything at all about Scottish independence. Making a bad decision doesn't equal irrationality, it just means the decision taker was ignorant of something, overvalued or undervalued some important fact, or forgot something. If I drink a bottle of water which was poisoned, I wasn't being irrational - I did not know it was poisoned. If I purchase product A instead of product B which is better, it's probably because I thought product A was better and acted based upon that.

Quote:

You don't have children do you?

Most parents will put the needs of their children above their own...even if that means going without themselves or depriving themselves in some way. In my own family, my father chose my education over his basic food and clothing needs, I have also see plenty of families chose to feed their children over themselves when there is a shortage. This is not the best option for the adult but it is the default setting of most parents.

Sorry, I wasn't completely clear there. "You" should be taken to mean "you and your closely loved ones", usually your family and close friends. Parents usually include their children and people under their care as part of "them". So you place your (and your family/close ones) well-being before the rest of the world's - that's the definition of selfishness I was alluding to.

The thing is - being selfish is not a bad thing in itself. It's pretty much what drives natural selection (I wanna live), and any sort of progress (I wanna have more things).

Guest

i see... So selfish can mean whatever you want it to mean as long as it backs up the point that you are trying to make!

As 'selfish' is not defined as acting in your own (and anyone else you happen to care about)'s best interest, but only as acting in the interests of the 'self' (refer to dictionary), it appears that what you are actually saying is that humans are not inherently selfish. By your own words, you are saying that humans regularly promote the interest of those around them be that family or close people or their community above their own self interests...

The dictionary defines such behaviour as 'altruism' not as 'selfishness'. You might want to live, but if your parents or the elders of your tribe had been selfish and not fed you, clothed you or sheltered you, then you would not have survived! So your basic survival requires the altruistic behaviour of those people around you - this is an inherent human characteristic.

ButterThumbz
I always used to wonder if she wore false ears

Gender: Male
Age: 53
Location: O'er the hills and far away

Defago wrote:

Rationality doesn't depend on whether you agree with it. Cameron made a choice according to what he perceives and believes. It was the best possible decision in his mind. You would've chosen differently, because you perceive and believe differently, and have different memories, opinions and upbringing.

I don't know who Alex Salmond is, what the Battle of Bannockburn was or anything at all about Scottish independence. Making a bad decision doesn't equal irrationality, it just means the decision taker was ignorant of something, overvalued or undervalued some important fact, or forgot something. If I drink a bottle of water which was poisoned, I wasn't being irrational - I did not know it was poisoned. If I purchase product A instead of product B which is better, it's probably because I thought product A was better and acted based upon that.

This is not about my agreement, this is about gaining support by appealing to people's fears instead of relying on the facts. As I see it, Cameron's appealing to people's fears about immigration because of his own fears about losing voters to the UK Independence Party.

Alex Salmond is the leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland, while the Battle of Bannockburn was probably the most significant moment in Scottish history when they kicked England's arse in the Wars of Scottish Independence. A bit like making all Scots sit through a screening of Braveheart and asking them to vote as the credits rolled. If that's not appealing to peoples irrationality I don't know what is.

And I'm not equating bad decision making with irrationality. The question is why did you think product A was better? If it was the advertising or packaging then you've made an irrational decision, regardless of how it compares to product B.

Last edited by ButterThumbz on 11/28/2013 21:34; edited 1 time in total

Defago
Your Most Favorite User

Gender: Male
Age: 31
Location: Lima

Mancsoulsister wrote:

i see... So selfish can mean whatever you want it to mean as long as it backs up the point that you are trying to make!

As 'selfish' is not defined as acting in your own (and anyone else you happen to care about)'s best interest, but only as acting in the interests of the 'self' (refer to dictionary), it appears that what you are actually saying is that humans are not inherently selfish. By your own words, you are saying that humans regularly promote the interest of those around them be that family or close people or their community above their own self interests...

The dictionary defines such behaviour as 'altruism' not as 'selfishness'. You might want to live, but if your parents or the elders of your tribe had been selfish and not fed you, clothed you or sheltered you, then you would not have survived! So your basic survival requires the altruistic behaviour of those people around you - this is an inherent human characteristic.

Those elders have a psychological need to continue the line, they also need younger workforce to maintain them later on. They are also following their paternal/maternal instinct, which rewards them psychologically, which rewards them for caring for the young - product of natural selection. Also, they consider themselves 'good elders', thereby giving them happiness. Every action has selfish reasons behind it.

What I said is that people have a degree of association to others. Mothers consider their young as part of "her", therefore the son's happiness gives her happiness.

In the end, I'm not trying to analyze whether moms care for their young, but why I believe socialism is not viable in large communities. Regardless of the details (which we're definitely not going to sort out here and now) we can agree that people won't work as hard (if at all) just out of the kindness of their heart. They expect payment. And capitalists don't put their capital in the line to spread joy, they do so to earn returns. Regardless of whether you agree with "everyone is selfish", you surely agree with the idea that any kind of productive work must have some selfishness behind it.