A question on psychology/philosophy

[John Dule]

This is a question I've been thinking about for some time now, and I was curious to hear Atlas' response. The question is when do we learn more about a person's nature-- when they have power over others, or when they have no power at all?

The argument for the former is that a person with no constraints on their behavior is likely to behave in the way that they most prefer. So, for example, a dictator is able to treat others however he likes, and so the way that he treats his subordinates tells you a lot about who he is as a person. The counterargument is that a person with zero power (let's say they're at gunpoint, for example) has no control over anything but themselves, and the only choice they can make is how they act. One might also argue that power corrupts, and so a person with power will become more likely to act contrary to their normal behavior.

Just a bunch of shower thoughts I was having. Looking forward to any input you guys might have.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The self is social.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

[Antonio the Sixth]

The self is social.

^^^

There is no such thing as "a person's true nature". We are the product of our conditions and interactions and as such, the ways we act with or without power are equally "true" to who we are in that particular moment. Existence precedes essence, etc.

[John Dule]

The self is social.

^^^

There is no such thing as "a person's true nature". We are the product of our conditions and interactions and as such, the ways we act with or without power are equally "true" to who we are in that particular moment. Existence precedes essence, etc.

Well, we know this isn't true. People have biological traits and preconditions that affect their personalities in various ways. Multiple people with different genetic profiles, if placed in exactly the same situation independently, would not react in exactly the same way. Humans are not purely "the product of our conditions and interactions." And if what you meant to say was that humans are the product of both nature and nurture, then, well... duh.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The self is social.

^^^

There is no such thing as "a person's true nature". We are the product of our conditions and interactions and as such, the ways we act with or without power are equally "true" to who we are in that particular moment. Existence precedes essence, etc.

So no-one is born gay?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh, great, the muh genetics argument. Because this sort of discourse is making a comeback in the 21st century for some reason.

Fine, there's probably a small share of human behavior that can be explained by genetic factors, but so what? Are you going to argue that the "true self" is whatever's encoded in our genes and all the social influences are just a facade on top of it? Seriously?

[John Dule]

Oh, great, the muh genetics argument. Because this sort of discourse is making a comeback in the 21st century for some reason.

Fine, there's probably a small share of human behavior that can be explained by genetic factors, but so what? Are you going to argue that the "true self" is whatever's encoded in our genes and all the social influences are just a facade on top of it? Seriously?

Yes, what place does science have in the 21st century? I thought we'd moved past that as a species!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

To clarify my position a bit more and to somewhat rise to Antonio's defense, there are obviously aspects of the human... "self" that can not be attributed purely to social circumstances. We can write this off as genetics, the soul, essence, what have you. I think we can find evidence that there is a "human something" there beneath the layers of socialization in the way that certain events may be universally traumatic; in that same way we can probably assert that there is a tangible true evil somewhere. None of this means that most aspects of what "we" are aren't emergent from environment and surroundings.

I would like somewhat to use myself as an example. Early on, as a child, I was drawn to comic books and illustration. Did one flow from the other? I didn't come from a very drawing-oriented family, nor was I raised with that sort of entertainment as my parents did not have comic books lying around the house (nor did they own any). Did both flow from being overly imaginative? If so, to what can we attribute that? No idea. That said, in terms of my biases, my political orientation, my career preferences, and aspects of my "moral character", I'd like to think I'm self conscious enough to be able to trace a lot of those to aspects of my upbringing and socialization. And I believe that which keeps a person "morally aligned" is going to stem a lot from social circumstances--this is not just muh Marxist "superstructure", but also the cognitive pathways and moral incentive structures forged over decades that lead to certain ethical aspirations, certain senses of limitations, certain people or forces one does not want to "let down", and so on. As such, I don't think we can isolate the human being (as an entire concept) from social circumstance to find some sort of "moral essence" that is particularly instructive as to how we view the entire race. There will assuredly always be "problem children" that defy all attempts at discipline, but these are by definition exceptions. And while we can say that the norm of human social control is itself defined by material and biological realities, I think the whole breadth of human history demonstrates these can be quite varied.

Most depraved and altruistic behavior in feral situations can probably be attributed to a sort of benign self interest which is itself fairly amoral. This is why I say that the self is social.

[Del Tachi]

The self is social.

^^^

There is no such thing as "a person's true nature". We are the product of our conditions and interactions and as such, the ways we act with or without power are equally "true" to who we are in that particular moment. Existence precedes essence, etc.

So no-one is born gay?

Oh, definitely not.  "Being gay" is a social identifier that people choose for themselves and human sexual presentation is extremely fluid and influenced by numerous non-biological factors over the course of an individual's lifetime. 

The whole "born this way" argument was a lazy intellectual exercise to make sexual orientation into a Constitutionally-protected "immutable characteristic" like race, but as the courts have moved away from this criterion so too should the GLBT movement.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Oh, great, the muh genetics argument. Because this sort of discourse is making a comeback in the 21st century for some reason.

Making a comeback...the study of genetics didn't take off until the second half of the 20th century.

Fine, there's probably a small share of human behavior that can be explained by genetic factors, but so what? Are you going to argue that the "true self" is whatever's encoded in our genes and all the social influences are just a facade on top of it? Seriously?

No?

Human traits are quite clearly a combination of inherited and environmental factors. I don't think there's much to be gained by trying to define the exact proportion of each.

The self is social.

^^^

There is no such thing as "a person's true nature". We are the product of our conditions and interactions and as such, the ways we act with or without power are equally "true" to who we are in that particular moment. Existence precedes essence, etc.

So no-one is born gay?

Oh, definitely not.  "Being gay" is a social identifier that people choose for themselves and human sexual presentation is extremely fluid and influenced by numerous non-biological factors over the course of an individual's lifetime.  

The whole "born this way" argument was a lazy intellectual exercise to make sexual orientation into a Constitutionally-protected "immutable characteristic" like race, but as the courts have moved away from this criterion so too should the GLBT movement.

Thank you for showing why I disagree with your and Antonio's blank-slatist position.

[John Dule]

To clarify my position a bit more and to somewhat rise to Antonio's defense, there are obviously aspects of the human... "self" that can not be attributed purely to social circumstances. We can write this off as genetics, the soul, essence, what have you. I think we can find evidence that there is a "human something" there beneath the layers of socialization in the way that certain events may be universally traumatic; in that same way we can probably assert that there is a tangible true evil somewhere. None of this means that most aspects of what "we" are aren't emergent from environment and surroundings.

I would like somewhat to use myself as an example. Early on, as a child, I was drawn to comic books and illustration. Did one flow from the other? I didn't come from a very drawing-oriented family, nor was I raised with that sort of entertainment as my parents did not have comic books lying around the house (nor did they own any). Did both flow from being overly imaginative? If so, to what can we attribute that? No idea. That said, in terms of my biases, my political orientation, my career preferences, and aspects of my "moral character", I'd like to think I'm self conscious enough to be able to trace a lot of those to aspects of my upbringing and socialization. And I believe that which keeps a person "morally aligned" is going to stem a lot from social circumstances--this is not just muh Marxist "superstructure", but also the cognitive pathways and moral incentive structures forged over decades that lead to certain ethical aspirations, certain senses of limitations, certain people or forces one does not want to "let down", and so on. As such, I don't think we can isolate the human being (as an entire concept) from social circumstance to find some sort of "moral essence" that is particularly instructive as to how we view the entire race. There will assuredly always be "problem children" that defy all attempts at discipline, but these are by definition exceptions. And while we can say that the norm of human social control is itself defined by material and biological realities, I think the whole breadth of human history demonstrates these can be quite varied.

Most depraved and altruistic behavior in feral situations can probably be attributed to a sort of benign self interest which is itself fairly amoral. This is why I say that the self is social.

Only you can possibly guess whether your imagination was inborn or developed over time. I too drew a lot as a kid and created characters and worlds (hell, I still do). It's hard to say whether or not such a thing is innate or not; for me it certainly felt like it. However, what is not up for debate is that biological traits (hormone imbalances, particular glands malfunctioning, mental disorders, etc) can and do affect a person's personality. I would also argue that phenotypical traits affect how a person interacts with society, so socialization still has its foundation in genetics. Given this, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to assume that some individuals who are, for instance, prone to anger might behave differently when they're in power. Socialization is not everything. Some people are predisposed to particular kinds of behavior.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure how this even got to a muh genetics argument. Even if some behaviors are genetically determined (whether that's a lot or a little is in the eye of the beholder, but I maintain that most of the really crucial things that make us who we are are social in nature) that doesn't in any way imply the existence of a "true self" somehow hidden beneath the layers of socialization. If you really want to remove all socialization and see what a human being looks like, well, there are some, er, interesting examples to look at.

[Vosem]

I do not think there is actually a contradiction between John Dule's and Antonio's points in this thread. Obviously humanity is a social animal which does not thrive in the absence of social interactions; obviously at the same time GWAS has revealed that plenty of easily measurable traits that might be considered 'personality' (like years of educational attainment) are very strongly influenced by genetics. It is perfectly valid to point out that, regardless of genetics, years of educational attainment is influenced very strongly by the expectations of the society you live in (someone exactly like you but 20,000 years ago would've achieved zero).

Within the same society, personality outcomes (which absolutely change over time in response to social pressures or environmental insults) are probably mostly the result of genetic factors, but obviously the changes in common personality outcomes we observe in different societies are so huge that that is the main factor.

[John Dule]

I'm not sure how this even got to a muh genetics argument. Even if some behaviors are genetically determined (whether that's a lot or a little is in the eye of the beholder, but I maintain that most of the really crucial things that make us who we are are social in nature) that doesn't in any way imply the existence of a "true self" somehow hidden beneath the layers of socialization. If you really want to remove all socialization and see what a human being looks like, well, there are some, er, interesting examples to look at.

This got to genetics because you made the (in my opinion, wrong) argument that personality and self are wholly molded by environment. I suppose that from your point of view, my OP is redundant because you're seeing a person for who they "really" are all the time in every situation they're in. I don't agree with this; I think it's pretty clear that people consciously alter their behavior in order to fit in to different social settings. Putting them in a position of unlimited power would strip away their need to do this, thus revealing how they would choose to conduct themselves with zero constraints on their behavior.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I would distinguish between a person's "true nature" (their telos, in the Aristotelian-Christian tradition) and a person's "true character" ( their deepest values and hidden habits).

Having unlimited power does not mean one escapes the influence of others. Our need to be liked can be very motivating.  People in power may be able to disguise their motives, or alternatively have their true motives be suspect without just cause.  If one has little power, and so one must choose between undesirable options, that may be more revealing of one's character.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure how this even got to a muh genetics argument. Even if some behaviors are genetically determined (whether that's a lot or a little is in the eye of the beholder, but I maintain that most of the really crucial things that make us who we are are social in nature) that doesn't in any way imply the existence of a "true self" somehow hidden beneath the layers of socialization. If you really want to remove all socialization and see what a human being looks like, well, there are some, er, interesting examples to look at.

This got to genetics because you made the (in my opinion, wrong) argument that personality and self are wholly molded by environment. I suppose that from your point of view, my OP is redundant because you're seeing a person for who they "really" are all the time in every situation they're in. I don't agree with this; I think it's pretty clear that people consciously alter their behavior in order to fit in to different social settings. Putting them in a position of unlimited power would strip away their need to do this, thus revealing how they would choose to conduct themselves with zero constraints on their behavior.

The thing is that the line between "consciously altering your behavior" and "becoming a different person who acts and thinks differently" is a lot thinner than we think. Gaining power (or losing power, for that matter) doesn't just change the material incentives for translating preferences into actions, it tends to shape preferences themselves. It's been obvious for a long time that someone habituated to wielding power will begin to think and feel differently - it's the idea behinds the "power corrupts" platitude. And similarly people who are used to NOT having power will often develop new ways of thinking that fits their situation. In both cases, they aren't just acting differently, they become different people. And I don't think the people they become can be more or less "true". They're both equally true to who that person is in that moment.

[John Dule]

I'm not sure how this even got to a muh genetics argument. Even if some behaviors are genetically determined (whether that's a lot or a little is in the eye of the beholder, but I maintain that most of the really crucial things that make us who we are are social in nature) that doesn't in any way imply the existence of a "true self" somehow hidden beneath the layers of socialization. If you really want to remove all socialization and see what a human being looks like, well, there are some, er, interesting examples to look at.

This got to genetics because you made the (in my opinion, wrong) argument that personality and self are wholly molded by environment. I suppose that from your point of view, my OP is redundant because you're seeing a person for who they "really" are all the time in every situation they're in. I don't agree with this; I think it's pretty clear that people consciously alter their behavior in order to fit in to different social settings. Putting them in a position of unlimited power would strip away their need to do this, thus revealing how they would choose to conduct themselves with zero constraints on their behavior.

The thing is that the line between "consciously altering your behavior" and "becoming a different person who acts and thinks differently" is a lot thinner than we think. Gaining power (or losing power, for that matter) doesn't just change the material incentives for translating preferences into actions, it tends to shape preferences themselves. It's been obvious for a long time that someone habituated to wielding power will begin to think and feel differently - it's the idea behinds the "power corrupts" platitude. And similarly people who are used to NOT having power will often develop new ways of thinking that fits their situation. In both cases, they aren't just acting differently, they become different people. And I don't think the people they become can be more or less "true". They're both equally true to who that person is in that moment.

I think you're severely underestimating how factors aside from environment affect a person's behavior. People process stimulus in a multitude of different ways, which has (in part) a good amount to do with their genes. There are genetic theories for almost every personality disorder, including disorders like sociopathy and psychopathy, both of which affect what you might call a person's "moral behavior." This is wholly relevant to how people behave in different settings. Now, a sociopath and a normal person might share some goals, but the sociopath does not possess the goal of not harming others-- one that most empathetic humans have (as a default, at least, until other factors are considered). This is how we differentiate the sociopath's behavior from that of other members of society, and it's why his behavior will be different than that of a neurotypical person, even when they are placed in the same situation. I really do not understand your insistence on some sort of tabula rasa philosophy when there is ample evidence against it. No one denies that environment can affect your physical or mental attributes, and no one denies that genetics can affect your physical attributes either. But as soon as someone suggests that genetics can affect mental attributes... people lose their minds. It is a self-evident truth and is supported by the entire field of psychology.

[afleitch]

It's complicated.

I think there's a bit of 'over each others heads here'

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0450-5

With depression, there are 'depression-associated genetic variants' identified. So too is familial exposure; growing up in a household with a parent with a depressive disorder can lead to an increased chance a child will also develop a depressive disorder. So while genetics and a combination of associative interactions can play a part can the 'associative interactions' exist on their own? Can the expression of something exist independent of a genetic/internal chemical disposition to it? Does it matter?

Going back a few posts, strictly speaking adult sexual attraction isn't reducable to mere 'behaviour'. It is base and cannot be disentangled from the physical self. There is a genetic composition to that. I don't think Antonio or Cath disputed that. What I think is being argued is that sexual behaviour should ideally accord to that base and it is socialisation that either healthily promotes that or supresses it for it's own ends.

So I can express today through openness of my sexuality and pair bonding, a sense of self that I could not do fifty years ago. I'm homosexual but it's socialisation that allows me to be gay. That is my 'true self'; my genetic disposition to be homosexual can't be true merely by itself because it is also a 'true' of self loathing opposite sex married closet cases. But my expression of my sexuality isn't something that can ever be independent of it's core.

So the self is the expression of the inherent. Not solely the inherent itself because it needs us as the actor.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure how this even got to a muh genetics argument. Even if some behaviors are genetically determined (whether that's a lot or a little is in the eye of the beholder, but I maintain that most of the really crucial things that make us who we are are social in nature) that doesn't in any way imply the existence of a "true self" somehow hidden beneath the layers of socialization. If you really want to remove all socialization and see what a human being looks like, well, there are some, er, interesting examples to look at.

This got to genetics because you made the (in my opinion, wrong) argument that personality and self are wholly molded by environment. I suppose that from your point of view, my OP is redundant because you're seeing a person for who they "really" are all the time in every situation they're in. I don't agree with this; I think it's pretty clear that people consciously alter their behavior in order to fit in to different social settings. Putting them in a position of unlimited power would strip away their need to do this, thus revealing how they would choose to conduct themselves with zero constraints on their behavior.

The thing is that the line between "consciously altering your behavior" and "becoming a different person who acts and thinks differently" is a lot thinner than we think. Gaining power (or losing power, for that matter) doesn't just change the material incentives for translating preferences into actions, it tends to shape preferences themselves. It's been obvious for a long time that someone habituated to wielding power will begin to think and feel differently - it's the idea behinds the "power corrupts" platitude. And similarly people who are used to NOT having power will often develop new ways of thinking that fits their situation. In both cases, they aren't just acting differently, they become different people. And I don't think the people they become can be more or less "true". They're both equally true to who that person is in that moment.

I think you're severely underestimating how factors aside from environment affect a person's behavior. People process stimulus in a multitude of different ways, which has (in part) a good amount to do with their genes. There are genetic theories for almost every personality disorder, including disorders like sociopathy and psychopathy, both of which affect what you might call a person's "moral behavior." This is wholly relevant to how people behave in different settings. Now, a sociopath and a normal person might share some goals, but the sociopath does not possess the goal of not harming others-- one that most empathetic humans have (as a default, at least, until other factors are considered). This is how we differentiate the sociopath's behavior from that of other members of society, and it's why his behavior will be different than that of a neurotypical person, even when they are placed in the same situation. I really do not understand your insistence on some sort of tabula rasa philosophy when there is ample evidence against it. No one denies that environment can affect your physical or mental attributes, and no one denies that genetics can affect your physical attributes either. But as soon as someone suggests that genetics can affect mental attributes... people lose their minds. It is a self-evident truth and is supported by the entire field of psychology.

Once again you are bringing genetics out of nowhere. I've already explained why it's not relevant with my argument (unless, again, you want to make the argument that there's some "true self" that's purely genetic and all the social conditions are window-dressing for that - but that's an argument you just recently backed down from, so I'm confused). The fact that there are non-environmental factors that affect human behavior does not prove the existence of a "true self" unless you can also argue that there exists a potential condition for a human psyche that is not affected by environmental factors at all. Which is such an obvious losing proposition that I don't understand how you can hope to keep this up.