South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 12, 2019, 02:59:23 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Are you a Cold Soul or Loving Puppy

 (Read 4737 times)
Description: Are humans inherently good?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« on: September 14, 2011, 10:28:11 AM »

Hello All,

I would like to ask your thoughts on a subject.
Do you believe humans are inherently good?
E.g. when you meet someone for the first time are you:
a) Careful trying to figure out if he is trustworthy.
b) Consider him trustworthy until the he shows himself unstrustworthy.

Of course if anybody considers me anything but a cold soul would be foolish but then people dont know that outright  Grin

Superman

PS Dont think to much about it, would be interesting to know your first thoughts. If you like add a good joke about it. Lets not over analyse it.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2011, 11:48:40 AM »

I don't think anybody is inherently good or bad.

When I meet new people I tend to consider them trustworthy while careful trying to figure out whether they are.

If a stranger tells me he or she wants a R1000 from me and will return it with interest in two days, I'll tend not to believe him or her. If the same stranger tells me I have to drive two km and then turn right at the next robot when I ask him or her directions, I tend to follow that directions and not automatically suspect such a person of leading me into an ambush.

Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2011, 12:27:05 PM »

I think it depends on your own self image...I tend to assess people as individuals instead of putting them into one or other pigeon hole. People with low self esteem will I think, tend to be more suspicious of others. People build up a profile in my mind which is a function of my subjective value systems and exposure to the individual. The profile ultimately does tend to "pigeon hole" them in any event.
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2011, 14:49:44 PM »

@ Brain, very interesting and insightful response.

 Angel'subjective value system' when I know more (and I have a quite a bit still to learn) hopefully we can have fun debating this. That is if you like that kind of thing. 

But would anybody dare to commit to a viewpoint  Evil
Logged
Jacques
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


JacquesR
WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2011, 15:07:19 PM »

It's easy to report from the point of view of one's experiences now, but that doesn't quite answer the question of what we are 'inherently'. And that question has to a large extent been answered by evolutionary biology, game theory, etc. We're inherently self-interested (not necessarily selfish), and that self-interest frequently translates into various altruistic behaviours in both human and non-human animals. As for the view from here-and-now, you're going to get wildly different reports based on where people live, their experiences to date and so forth. For example, when I recently visited Oslo, a local couple simply gave their house keys to a young Irish couple who were visiting (for the same event I was there for), and went away for the weekend. They had never met this couple before. That would probably not happen in SA.
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2114



« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2011, 15:30:51 PM »



But would anybody dare to commit to a viewpoint  Evil

I dare say you're not going to get a hard and fast viewpoint here.  We're skeptics remember? Most of us will give a stranger in a non-threatening situation the benefit of the doubt, but in almost all situations, I would rather not rely on a stranger or even a known person for anything if there is'nt another way around a scenario.
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2011, 19:02:05 PM »

One needs some notion of what "good" might be. You make the assumption that trustworthiness is good. In some views it might be bad, or indifferent. If you think good has something to do with our ability to procreate ( breed, make more of our species, etc. )( not that I necessarily do, mind - I am mostly just confused ), the common lie "I love you ( now stfu and get on the bed, doll )" might be good perhaps?
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2011, 19:07:00 PM »

Do you believe humans are inherently good?

I believe humans sit on a bell-curve in most aspects and there's no reason they can't on this one. Some people are bleeding-heart, some are cold as ice, most are somewhere in between.

Quote
E.g. when you meet someone for the first time are you:
a) Careful trying to figure out if he is trustworthy.

Am I trusting them by being in their company, or trusting them by handing them a loaded gun? Different levels of trust for different people, and the more hardcore trust can only be earned. Due to personal experiences though, I'm weary of even the closest of people when it comes to "the big stuff", I've learned the hard way that familiarity can breed MISPLACED trust too.

I am outwardly a cold soul, but I'm butter on the inside. I'm an emotional eclair. (MBTI type: INTJ)
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2011, 19:59:56 PM »

Er, I think you meant “wary” not “weary.”  Funny slip, though. Grin

You’re aware of MBTI’s criticisms?

'Luthon64
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2011, 23:07:09 PM »

You may have mentioned it before.  Grin
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2011, 06:05:44 AM »


You’re aware of MBTI’s criticisms?



Hmmm...

Psychometrics - measuring done by psychos. Not on my list of favourite things. Trying to box-in and contain the human mind reminds me of that day at Rwenzori Discount Isotope Packers LLC when we tested our newly designed 60 kg size tin can for packing U-235. Ka-fucking-boom would be an understatement.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2011, 08:29:40 AM »

So I have!  I guess that makes me an INTP with a leaky memory…



LOL @ rwenzori.  “Rwenzori Discount Isotope Packers LLC” exceeded my critical humour mass. Grin

'Luthon64
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2011, 10:24:20 AM »

Truth is, I'm painfully aware of the big hole that is the MBTI. I find that for a "extremely rare" type called INTJ, and the so-called "NT"s generally, I seem to smack face first into people who "test" as that type all the frikkin time. It doesn't seem to add up even by my casual observation.

So why do I mention it? Because before I became critical of the whole thing, a friend linked me to a Jung test, which I took.

Now, lets just suspend the fact that I'm a skeptic for a second.... In my ignorance it changed my life. It's weird, and I can't explain why, or how, but it did. Reading through the INTJ description, I can't say that before that time I'd ever seen anyone, anywhere, describe me in such painful, intricate, deeply buried detail as this thing did. Let me note, I'd been to clinical child psychologists?/psychiatrists? as a kid (I was/am categorised as ... above average, and testing ensued. Getting pulled out of class to do an IQ/aptitude/etc test in school was a recurring theme), and later in life I'd read through their reports and they didn't come nearly as close as INTJ descriptions on the net - and I mean, it's the net ffs! - , they're freakishly accurate and specific (in my opinion) for something written by a complete stranger who has never met me.

So, I have extremely strong confirmation bias on MY OWN "type description" in the MBTI. This could be pure fluke, this could be wishful thinking, this is based on self-selection and anecdote, I realise that. BUT, after reading through some of them, and examining it more.... I felt less alone in the world. My rational mind might not like how I'm feeding cognitive dissonance on this one, but that's how it is.

I've seen similarities between myself and the INFJ type too, so I realise these categories aren't set in stone, and I tend to think we can "inhabit" any personality (no I don't mean "as categorised by Jung/MB") we want depending on context. I've also seen MBTI type "professionals" on the net be VERY quick to point out the flaws in the system, so I don't think they have "blind faith" in the methodology. I think lots of laypeople do, but I don't think pro's do.

Do I think it's true because I find it useful? No. But when describing myself, I find it's a very useful summary of how I feel "I am" that I can point other people to. And in that regard, I DO think it's useful to paint a person in broad strokes with a succinct "label". Kinda like labelling a species never describes an individual in full, but helps.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2011, 10:57:12 AM »

You don’t think it’s likely that the Forer effect accounts for a significant part of the MBTI’s perceived accuracy?

We have family members who scoff at Western astrology but swear by the allegedly impressive accuracy and specificity of Chinese horoscopes.

'Luthon64
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2011, 11:14:38 AM »

Absolutely. Like I say it's completely subjective and can be based on various cognitive biases I have. In my attempt to mitigate this I read through most of the descriptions available and found I did agree with one more than any of the others.
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2011, 13:32:29 PM »

Boogie Monster, I really do not like psychologists/psychiatrists and esp not their tests. I think that eventually sciences like evolutionary biology and neuroscience will make psychology obsolete. At least to a very large extent. Something that I am very skeptical about are personality and IQ tests.

And that question has to a large extent been answered by evolutionary biology, game theory, etc. We're inherently self-interested (not necessarily selfish), and that self-interest frequently translates into various altruistic behaviours in both human and non-human animals.

Thank you Jacques I really like your post. I agree with this and it is something that I want to learn more about *and it is hard science* wich I like even more.

Very interesting responses again great forum that makes a person think!

Superman
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2011, 13:45:29 PM »

PS according to Wiki there seems to be three types of skepticism
1. Scientific Skepticism
2. Religious Skepticsim
3. Philosophical Skepticism

Myself I would fall under Religious Skepticism definitely not under the other two.

Hope you do not have a problem with that. I just thought I should clear this up so that you understand better where I am coming from.

Regards,

Superman
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2011, 14:24:30 PM »

PS according to Wiki there seems to be three types of skepticism
1. Scientific Skepticism
2. Religious Skepticsim
3. Philosophical Skepticism
I find this Wiki classification contrived. Skepticism IMHO is a particular approach or mindset to whatever subject you wish. By definition, philosophical skepticism looks awfully like an oxymoron?? WTF
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3128



« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2011, 14:41:38 PM »

I also find it a bit weird. Science is almost an embodiment of skepticism. If you're not skeptical of science you're doing it wrong.
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2011, 14:53:04 PM »

Sorry am I misunderstanding. Would you be skeptic about for eg something like evolution that is supported by a lot of evidence. If so I cannot be a skeptic at all hope I do not offend somebody. I really cannot be skeptic about something that is supported by evidence.
Logged
Superman
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2011, 15:39:09 PM »

 WTF!! Just read the article again. You can count me in for scientific skepticism. Sorry my bad! Cant be turned on the Philosophical Skepticism, never will!

Thought it good that I should give a reason why i.e. philosophical skepticism questions our ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how we perceive it. Sorry for the edit.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 17:32:06 PM by Superman, Reason: Added my reasons why I dont like philosophical skepticism » Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2467


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2011, 21:25:08 PM »

Getting back to the original question of whether to trust or not to trust. I too would blindly follow a stranger's advice on trivial matters, possibly with significant ones, but definately not with those that are potentially life changing. I'll be surprised if most people do not feel this way.

Also, common sense does not automatically make one a cold soul.

Rigil
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.853 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 10, 2019, 23:10:56 PM
Privacy Policy