Human Nature in Summary

So, summarizing human nature, a somewhat difficult problem. Part of the reason it is so difficult to sum up is because our nature seems divided, almost to the point of classifying humans as a species insane. We are self-centered, and yet will donate large sums of money to help others. We strive for peace between nations, yet incite violence with them. Human nature seems partly to be that we always have the full range of emotions and personalities within us, and that as a species, we display that entire range all at once, creating an environment that prevents us from ever really figuring out what our nature is. Maybe our nature is to never know our nature, because you can never know everything, and our natures seem to encompass everything. We really are an odd species.

Nature, Nurture, and Tabletop RPGs

After further consideration of the Nature VS Nurture debate, I think I have found a good comparison to the debate that (one) can help illustrate the idea I had in the previous post of Nature modifying Nurture, and (two) can be easily explained using Dungeons and Dragons of all things.

When you create a new character in D&D, there are various steps that you go through. A simplified version of it is that you roll dice to determine your basic ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, etc), pick a race (elf, dwarf, human, halfling, etc), class/profession (Fighter, Rouge, Wizard, etc), and then go on to select different skills, tactics, and equipment.

Now, one's Starting Nature would be those starting ability scores, paralleling different body structures and basic personalities. The Nurture-based parts of one's personality that can't really be attributed to Nature would be things like the characters race (which in some cases will modify your ability scores) and class (your basic training at least). However, once you get to choosing different equipment and skills, Nature would once again take over and modify the Nurture aspects to suit whatever purpose you could desire.

For example, you could have two players create identical characters, both with the same ability scores, class choice, and race, but the end results of those characters will be wildly different depending on what kinds of skills those players chose for their characters. Despite the same Nurture-based influences, you can end up with completely different builds for the characters.
This reflects how two people with the exact same background can behave in totally different ways.

Nature warping Nurture

It would seem that, as far as the debates between what shapes humans, Nature or Nurture, the main aspect of humans this debate is about is for what kind of personalities people have. And for that case, I think that it is all about what a person's nature is, or more specifically, how that nature modifies whatever nurturing is given to the individual. A person will have certain predispositions to various lines of thinking, and those guidelines also determine what kinds of guidance they are willing to accept, and what kinds of ideals and rules they would adopt from others or adopt in modified forms. Effectively, human nature is one that gives individuals varying levels of interest in creating their own rules and ideals by adopting and modifying the rules of others. One end of the scale would be someone who makes their own rules with almost no input from outside sources, and the opposite end would be those who simply accept whatever rules they are told to follow. Effectively, one's Nature determines how much their Nurture will affect them.

Art in odd places

So, as for furthering the case against Pinker, who claims that contemporary art is all terrible, and is so terrible because the artists are ignoring human nature when creating their art, I give you this post.
Yes part of modern art is about doing crazy things like using found objects and scrap metal, but in many cases, this is a good thing, for two reasons. One, it forces the viewer to look at the aesthetics of every-day objects, and maybe actually learn to appreciate the every-day objects around us. Secondly, it is by doing crazy things like this that art grows. Surrealism has to be one of the bigger examples of this, as it is intentionally abstract and insane-looking, especially when compared to the outside observer, yet it was a major growth for art as a whole. It almost seems that Pinker is trying to form arguments against modern art simply because his personal view is that it doesn't look good, instead of trying to understand what the artists are doing, which is forcing us to look at the world differently.
Part of baffling your audience is getting them to think about why the piece is so baffling, and that is probably the point of the piece in the first place.

Cooperative Humans

At this point, I'm pretty sure that evolution-wise, it is human nature to be socialist, simply because we needed to work together to survive. However, I think that our nature has also been changed by our nation's capitalist mindset. In effect, the United States is really in the process of potentially changing an aspect of human nature. However, even if socialism wasn't part of human nature, it is something at should be worked towards. It's better to have everyone helping each other and making sure that people can actually survive than to have a very small group of wealthy people screwing everyone else over.

Resentment and Wealth

So, since Resentment of the injustice at having vastly wealthy individuals (and/or corporations) is what really fuels Egalitarianism, one wonders how we can get the public at large not only to realize this is true, but how to get them to act on it. As mentioned in class, one a group of people gets pushed hard enough, they will fight back. However, I'm wondering how we could actually get people to act on their resentment before it gets to the potentially violent revolution point. We know that Resentment is about not just getting a better life for yourself, but getting a better life for everyone.

So how do we actually get people in gear to do this?

Self-Interest, Selfishness, and... Magic

So, while in class we seem to have isolated the idea that Selfishness is Self-Interest taken to harmful (to others, or even the self) levels, I wonder on how the selfish actions of one character could potentially be viewed as positive for a larger group. One possibility is with the idea of capitalism, where selfishness would be considered a positive trait (doing everything you can to become the richest person, no limits), however, there is also the idea of having one person, motivated purely by selfishness, who does something that results in good for the rest of the population. I'm not sure how it could come about, but would it count as a "good" action, without being altruistic?

Also, on the ideas of Selfishness and Self-Interest, there is some study of the difference in the trading card game Magic: the Gathering. In Magic, there are five colors of magic, White, Blue, Black, Red, and Green (arranged clockwise in that order as a circle), each color with it's own positive and negative attributes. In the case of Selfishness, this is a core value of Black, however Black is also capable of just as much good or evil as all the other colors (White, for example is all about protection and order. At it's worst, it creates a xenophobic, totalitarian police-state), supplying the idea of self-interest being positive, but not necessarily being nice about it. In comparison, Red, which has Freedom as a core value, is very self-interested in everyone it considers a friend, or anyone who is under oppressive rule, and would cause a revolution against a tyrant simply because one person is being oppressed. In this case, we have someone who causes the removal of a tyrant (good and potentially altruistic action) but who did not do it for the sake of creating a better government, but for the sake of preventing one person from living under a hardship. Would that be considered altruistic, and if so, on what scale?