I didn't say society was perfect - hierarchies and power are seperate matters. Nevertheless I would suggest that many of those in the top 1% do have empathy for others and also generously support philanthropic causes. Where would hospitals and charities be without philanthropy? There's a long history of the wealthy sharing resources with the poor. As for the bottom 90%; many can and do work together and pool resources for a common good. It helps them to survive. There's also self-interested altruism and reciprocal altruism - useful survival approaches. — Tom Storm

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's not that I'm aiming for some perfect ideal state where everybody is altruistic - you seem to have missed the part in my post where I suggested that a small number of altruists could see the entire human race through thick and thin but then the fact is even this seems too optimistic an assessement of the current situation. Thus my dissatisfaction.

Also, I have doubts as to the aunthenticity of your claims. For instance, lamentably but not surprisingly, hospitals in general are for-profit organizations. I'll leave it at that.

Is it a gross error? It's clear empathy and altruism is a strong force on the planet and the marked contrast between this and selfishness is the story of the human race. Will time and changing behaviours remove altruism from humans? Who can say? — Tom Storm

I wish I had more to say. You seem to be on the right track though.

Naturalistic fallacy — Banno

N/A. The theory of evolution has an overarching principle all life has to conform to - it' a law which basically states that survival is the name of the game. Given this, everything that living organisms do must, one way or another, go towards ensuring survival. Now explain altruism which, in certain respects, is giving the advntage to one's competitor.

I've always failed to understand why so many otherwise intelligent, even scientifically & historically literate, people still fail to understand that Darwin was concerned with the evolution (i.e. origin) of species by natural selection vis-à-vis "survival of the fittest" and N O T the evolution (or dominance) of "rugged individuals"? Since we're an eusocial species, as corollary what's implied is survival of the fittest eusociety – N O T survival of the most Spencerian, laissez-faire, moral-circus clowns. With this proper focus, altruism & cooperation are readily explained (shown) to be as indispensable as they are ineluctable for adaptive survival strategies of eusocial species like primates, cetaceans, elephants, etc. 'Discarding the weak' or normalizing 'toxic masculinity' are maladaptive practices, especially for human groups in the absence of natural adaptive pressures for so many millennia.

Yep, that Alpha Male has to sleep at night. It would behoove him to be smart, too.

An enlightened capitalist would call it enlightened self-interest.

I challenge this, although I acknowledge that from a recent viewpoint this seems true. Your date of change is about right. A survey of high school yearbooks around that time shows a change from a jacket-and-tie and short haircut conformity to a much more relaxed standard, and in more than dress and personal style. This change occurring in just a few years.

If I have to sum it up, before 1960 students were expected to learn and know and behave, and for the most part, they did. The idea being that they would enter the workplace as young adults and with some competency, school itself being all about that preparation. After 1960, not. None of it. And in the 62 years since, it seems to me that education, having surrendered educating, has not figured out what its business or purpose is. And by now, the educators themselves are, and are from, the uneducated.

What you call "independent thinking" is just application of learned knowledge. It is a shame, and not your fault, that you are (maybe not you personally) so far removed from real independent thinking that you take a basic level of taught competency for it.

I know of what I speak, being of that age. And I know something about independent thinking, both from my own efforts and difficulties with it, and as well from the lack of it in my person and in my community - that being the USA. That is not to say that no one knows how to think, or that everyone is ignorant, but I myself often feel out in the world as I imagine the Jumblies might have felt at sea. — tim wood

That is an interesting observation.

My knowledge of the change was the day all the teachers in my school were in shock. It was very frightening because we were ducking under our desk to survive a nuclear war. :rofl: Actually I think that was about creating fear and preventing any questioning of the changes brought on by the 1958 National Defense Education Act and establishing the Military-Industrial Complex. Anyway, we were living with fear of a nuclear war and those "Godless" communist. :lol: In an afternoon class, a male teacher announced the purpose of education had been changed. We went from transmitting our culture and the US mythology of our forefathers (national heroes) and preparing everyone for good moral judgment and citizenship, to preparing everyone for a technological society with unknown values. That is, in a teacher conference the teachers learn about the implementation of the National Defense Education Act.

My grandmother was a teacher and we were shocked when she walked away from a job. She was working in a private school and the principal interfered with her classroom discipline. I have collected old books about education for many years, and one of them published in the 1960s explains the impersonalness a teacher is to practice, to be sure s/he treats every student the same. This change in policy and "professional" behavior has penetrated all our institutions. I don't think this is the subject of the thread so I will stop here. But I seriously want people to believe what I am saying. We adopted German bureaucracy and German education and the Military-Industrial Complex is firmly established. Bush called this the New World Order and so did another well-known political leader.

Societal expectations about gender doesn’t have anything to do with captains of industry, either. The Dalai Lama is a spiritual leader - he’s not running the country, so I don’t know what a comparatively ‘high standard of living’ has to do with what he’s working to achieve. Bill Gates, for all his philanthropy, is doing it out of his surplus resources, not his compassion. To follow the example of Bill Gates is to wait until you’re a billionaire before giving. — Possibility

Yes, and without men like Bill Gates (John Wayne), we do not have the industrial wealth that benefits all of us. Being able to educate and feed everyone is a by-product of industrialists taking charge and making things happen. It is not a product of spiritual leaders.

We might admire and envy some indigenous people and their communal living. Their cultures are good for the human soul but do not lead to technology. They would never be able to feed the world as our technology enables us to feed the world. The leaders of their societies are nothing like industrial leaders.

Our notions of what a man is, are very cultural and change. Today if a man wants to be a woman he can use hormones and surgery to physically be more like a woman, and a woman can do the same if she wants to be a man. That thinking would not fly well in our past, nor does it fly well in cultures that have more traditional values.

so glad someone brought Star Trek into this. The "group think" paradigm is an interesting way to distinguish our liberal norms to those of the '50s.

To clarify, you are saying the decline of gender roles is linked with the decline of individuality?

Although I love Star Trek, and the example you used, I am afraid I have to disagree with you. Perhaps this is just reflection of my personality and outlook but every classroom, staff meeting or social event I've ever been in feels like a wild West shoot-out of people's ideas. The fastest gun wins. Hell: take this very forum. At the very least I think it shows "group think" is not ubiquitous.

I put it to you that what has changed since the '50s is more people have been empowered, given a voice and have been allowed to enter the fray. I think it's always been a competition, only now we have more players. — BigThoughtDropper

What a delicious argument. :grin: Truth often is not this or that, but it is this and that. I absolutely love how, in an argument, both people are right although their argument looks completely different. Please watch the two Star Treks with an eye for the differences.

Yes, the underlings have less power than when we use group think, and empower everyone. This does not make it right or better. Strong leadership is better than mushy leadership. There is a time and place for us all to work together, but this should not be at the expense of strong leadership!

I've always failed to understand why so many otherwise intelligent, even scientifically & historically literate, people stillfail to understand that Darwin was concerned with the evolution (i.e. origin) of species by natural selection vis-à-vis "survival of the fittest" and N O T the evolution (or dominance) of "rugged individuals"? Since we're an eusocial species, as corollary what's implied is survival of the fittest eusociety – N O T survival of the most Spencerian, laissez-faire, amoral circus clowns. With this proper focus, altruism & cooperation are readily explained (shown to be) as indispensable as they're ineluctable as adaptive survival strategies for eusocial species like primates, cetaceans, elephants, etc. 'Discarding the weak' or normalizing 'toxic masculinity' are maladaptive, especially for human groups in the absence of natural adaptive pressures for so many millennia. — 180 Proof

My hunch is banding together, social living to be precise, altruism therefore, is the expected response of the weak against stronger competitors. There's strength in numbers and that the dominant species on the planet is homo sapiens proves the point. Forming groups is such a powerful means of survival that evolution over countless generations seems to have selected for individuals that put the group before the self - incipient altruism. This first step laid the foundation for altruism as we know it which I suspect will mature over time into something else, something hopefully much better.

some perfect ideal state where everybody is altruistic — TheMadFool

This has nothing to do with "altruism." It has to do with fellow-feeling, community, common values. We're human. We more or less, most of the time like each other. We wish each other well. We share a sense of common purpose with other people.

Also, looking for a specific evolutionary purpose for every detail of every aspect of human behavior is silly and pointless. That's sociobiology and it's wrong-headed.

hospitals in general are for-profit organizations. — TheMadFool

According to the web, In the US, about 20% of hospitals are for-profit.

Too much Herbert Spencer in that "competitors" slip-of-the-mind. On average individuals in groups survive much better against natural hazards like famines, droughts, wildfires, caring for the young and elderly, gathering fuel and food, tending the sick, developing language, building free-standing shelters, hunting, watching for signs of known dangers, and on and on ... than an individual alone. It's not a matter of guarding against "weakness", Fool, but a matter of existential vulnerabilities & exigencies usually before there are threats from "competitors". I suppose you've spent little-to-no time in the wilderness or backcountry or at sea, and so haven't taken the opportunity to carefully consider the radical difference of being out there by oneself versus with companions, have you? :shade:

Agree.

This has nothing to do with "altruism." It has to do with fellow-feeling, community, common values. We're human. We more or less, most of the time like each other. We wish each other well. We share a sense of common purpose with other people.

Also, looking for a specific evolutionary purpose for every detail of every aspect of human behavior is silly and pointless. That's sociobiology and it's wrong-headed. — T Clark

This is what Wittgenstein aptly described as being bewitched by language. Altruism is the concern for the welfare of others and covers, includes, what you call "fellow-feeling", "community", "common values". These are either the basis for or the consequences of altruism.

According to the web, In the US, about 20% of hospitals are for-profit. — T Clark

Is that why doctors in America are so rich? Gimme a break!

Too much Herbert Spencer in that "competitors" slip-of-the-mind. On average individuals in groups survive much better against natural hazards like famines, droughts, wildfires, caring for the young and elderly, gathering fuel and food, tending the sick, developing language, building free-standing shelters, hunting, watching for signs of known dangers, and on and on ... than an individual alone. It's not a matter of guarding against "weakness", Fool, but a matter of existential vulnerabilities & exigencies usually before there are threats from "competitors". I suppose you've spent little-to-no time in the wilderness or backcountry or at sea, and so haven't taken the opportunity to careful consider the radical difference of being out there by oneself versus with companions? :shade: — 180 Proof

You lead, I'll follow.

I've always failed to understand why so many otherwise intelligent, even scientifically & historically literate, people stillfail to understand that Darwin was concerned with the evolution (i.e. origin) of species by natural selection vis-à-vis "survival of the fittest" and N O T the evolution (or dominance) of "rugged individuals"? — 180 Proof

That's easy. People try to derive lessons from facts, or from what are purported to be facts, for the purpose of their own benefit and advantage.
Touch a hot stove plate, you get burned -- fact. Lesson: don't touch hot stove plates.

What can one learn, for one's own benefit and advantage, from the theory of evolution? That one needs to see to it that one beats natural selection, as much as possible.

On average individuals in groups survive much better against natural hazards — 180 Proof

Sure, what you say holds for natural hazards. But not for the dangers posed by other humans.
We're not in the wilderness.

Yeah, most just delude themselves with self-serving, facile, ideologies. No mystery there. This sort of craveness is proof we're, as Hitchens never tired of pointing out, "just a half chromosome away from being chimpanzees".

We're not, which is my point – the danger from other humans is amplified in negative feedback loops especially in societies which have normalized expectations & behaviors more suitable for wilderness survival. A glance at the differences between crime-ridden gun-macho "frontier-romantic" America and any robust welfare-state in Scandanavia more than illustrates the point: e.g. far lower levels of anti-social pathologies & recividism.

Doing something meaningful for others often provides purpose and healing for the helper. People dealing with depression, trauma and substance issues, for instance, can find healing in volunteering and community work that they may not get from counselling or introspection. Three decades of work in the area of addictions and mental ill health has demonstrated this to me many times. — Tom Storm

Which doesn't yet mean that healthy people benefit from volunteering etc.

The mentally unwell person needs to do a number of things in order to feel a measure of sanity and wellness; yet those things are not what normal people do in order to maintain their normalcy.

For example, a former smoker who is now practicing abstinence has to do a number of mental, verbal, and physical practices in order to successfully resist the urge to smoke (e.g. repeating affirmations, avoiding people who smoke, visiting a 12-step group). But a normal person who doesn't smoke doesn't need to do any of those practices in order not to smoke.

It's questionable whether one can become normal by doing those things that normal people don't do.

But do you now understand why "so many otherwise intelligent, even scientifically & historically literate, people still fail to understand that Darwin was concerned with the evolution (i.e. origin) of species by natural selection vis-à-vis "survival of the fittest" and N O T the evolution (or dominance) of "rugged individuals"?

Also, I have doubts as to the authenticity of your claims. For instance, lamentably but not surprisingly, hospitals in general are for-profit organizations. I'll leave it at that. — TheMadFool

I get that and understand what you say. But none of it suggests that human beings do not have altruism. It simply suggest that some struggle to manifest altruism given economic systems and power.

Which doesn't yet mean that healthy people benefit from volunteering etc. — baker

I think it does and I have seen this many times too. The healthy person often doesn't realise how much more rewarding life can be. For the self-oriented and highly successful business person, for instance, a spate of volunteering is often revelatory and beneficial and changes their entire worldview.

:100:

I guess, actually, I always have: people in the main are selfish, amoral, thoughtless shits (i.e. fuckin' chimps!)

I get that and understand what you say. But none of it suggests that human beings do not have altruism. It simply suggest that some struggle to manifest altruism given economic systems and power. — Tom Storm

I'm not saying there's no altruism. I'm just contemplating the possibility that it, as a trait, maybe on its way out from the gene pool. To confirm/disconfirm this, we'd need to keep track of altruists - their numbers and their well-being - and look for trends. If the population of altruists are declining then it suggests evolutionary pressure that's working against altruists and if the population graph of altruists is pointing to the top-right of the page, then altruism proves itself as a trait that "...has huge survival advantages..."

I'm not saying there's no altruism. I'm just contemplating the possibility that it, as a trait, maybe on its way out from the gene pool. — TheMadFool

I know. No idea about the latter part.

I know. No idea about the latter part. — Tom Storm

:ok:

The theory of evolution has an overarching principle all life has to conform to - it' a law which basically states that survival is the name of the game. — TheMadFool

The question "ought you do as evolution dictates?" remains open.

So two small issues; the first, evolution does not tell you what you ought to do; the second, as points out, evolution does not tell you what a real man is.

that is a powerful argument. And I totally get what you're saying: I was always the nerdy guy on the sidelines not able to understand why my male collegues put so much value in getting piss drunk and playing football. It was only later in life that I learnt (more or less) how to be "a bloke" as we say in the UK. I even changed my accent and the way I spoke which pleased my working class father quite a bit.

I think each of us is conforming and non-conforming in diverse ways. In this way we are finding ways to connect or be seen, and also coping with feelings of isolation or exclusion. It is this diversity that is missing from our societal tropes, concealing opportunities for compassion and understanding.

Beautifully said, and it would be wonderful world where we could overcome biology to create an inclusive society which is what I think you are driving at.

I would just make the observation that perhaps your, and my, perspective may be skewed by that fact that, as I consciously mentioned in the OP, all of us here seem to be mostly highly nerdy, highly educated, and highly intelligent. Thus, we are in the minority.

I think the majority of people achieve social cohesion through being in a "gang" of guys or girls doing guyish and girlish things. As you say this can lead to excluding people who do not win the genetic lottery of having a traditionally "masculine" or "feminine" body.

My own experiences have been quite Darwinian and being masculine, although also a pleasant novelty, has also been an excellent survival strategy (I can hear you rolling your eyes, and yes - us men do love to come back to Darwinian theories - perhaps too much).

:up:

should not be at the expense of strong leadership

I will agree with you there. I have never seen a natural consensus of opinion being an effective way of organising human beings; perhaps it is a good way to decide the restaurant my friend group is visiting tonight, or what film we're watching tonight, but not with serious matters where people have serious vested interests.

We all need a Picard in our lives to draw us together, but also a Kirk to drive us forward :wink:

My friend's only comment was "Real men eat what they fuckin' like". — Banno

I remember reading somewhere that Wittgenstein, when ask about his diet, said (paraphrased): "I don't mind very much what I eat, as long as it's always the same".

Cock-sure balls-up?