Are humans hardwired to hurt?

[Skibereen]

To prevent a further threadjack of this, I'm opening this here.

Are humans innately violent or altruistic or do we as a species socialize these behaviours?

Edit: Thanks Kat. Reposting poll too.

Avoiding the Altuistic thing all together--all animals(to my knowledge) have some mechanism for inflicting pain in defense if they do not have a fairly strong mechanism for preventing harm(or if they dont breed on exponents). We dont have shells to curl up into, and we dont run particularly fast--so I would say our primary defense mechanism is violence(self and species preservation). Now how modern society may have perverted that instinctive reaction is open to all the speculation in the world--but in my most uneducated opinion evolution says "attack".

[United Dependencies]

We hate that which is different, and love what is similar

This.

and why are some of the poll options the same?

[Chrobalta]

Not necessarily. Humans are hardwired to think (minus the Republican party). I would argue more often than not we choose the non violent path and it is simply a small minority (also known as the Republican party) that chooses the violent path.

Often rather than getting involved in situations humans take the pacifistic route and opt to avoid involvement. Robberies for example, one idiot is choosing a violent method to advance his aims, yet the majority (if not all) the people in the store probably will step out of the way and not use violence to intervene in the situation. It is a calculated position and more often than not we come to the conclusion that violence is not the answer.

[Skibereen]

Strange my post disappeared.
Too long winded I guess.
Fight or Flight.

[Zeppy]

Not necessarily. Humans are hardwired to think (minus the Republican party). I would argue more often than not we choose the non violent path and it is simply a small minority (also known as the Republican party) that chooses the violent path.

Often rather than getting involved in situations humans take the pacifistic route and opt to avoid involvement. Robberies for example, one idiot is choosing a violent method to advance his aims, yet the majority (if not all) the people in the store probably will step out of the way and not use violence to intervene in the situation. It is a calculated position and more often than not we come to the conclusion that violence is not the answer.

Yes, all the Republican do not think. HURR-DURR!

Now to get that out of the way..
Not really. The majority have two options: fight or flight. Half will run away, half will fight.

[Chrobalta]

Not necessarily. Humans are hardwired to think (minus the Republican party). I would argue more often than not we choose the non violent path and it is simply a small minority (also known as the Republican party) that chooses the violent path.

Often rather than getting involved in situations humans take the pacifistic route and opt to avoid involvement. Robberies for example, one idiot is choosing a violent method to advance his aims, yet the majority (if not all) the people in the store probably will step out of the way and not use violence to intervene in the situation. It is a calculated position and more often than not we come to the conclusion that violence is not the answer.

Yes, all the Republican do not think. HURR-DURR!

Now to get that out of the way..
Not really. The majority have two options: fight or flight. Half will run away, half will fight.

Not necessarily, what about bystanders who just stand and watch? They are not choosing either option. Fight or flight is usually the instinctual reaction when placed in immediate danger usually by complete surprise.

Another example, criminals don't always fight or run from the police, sometimes they give up.

[West Failure]

I don't think humans are any more or less violent than any other animal. There is always some logic behind violence we just prefer to label it 'senseless violence'.

[Skibereen]

Not necessarily. Humans are hardwired to think (minus the Republican party). I would argue more often than not we choose the non violent path and it is simply a small minority (also known as the Republican party) that chooses the violent path.

Often rather than getting involved in situations humans take the pacifistic route and opt to avoid involvement. Robberies for example, one idiot is choosing a violent method to advance his aims, yet the majority (if not all) the people in the store probably will step out of the way and not use violence to intervene in the situation. It is a calculated position and more often than not we come to the conclusion that violence is not the answer.

Yes, all the Republican do not think. HURR-DURR!

Now to get that out of the way..
Not really. The majority have two options: fight or flight. Half will run away, half will fight.

Not necessarily, what about bystanders who just stand and watch? They are not choosing either option. Fight or flight is usually the instinctual reaction when placed in immediate danger usually by complete surprise.

Another example, criminals don't always fight or run from the police, sometimes they give up.

Then the instinct hasnt been triggered. Its a fear response to immenent danger if you do neither then it was not immediately perceived as imminent danger OR evolutionarily speaking your genes shouldnt be passed on because you lack a basic survival instinct and if we still lived primitive they'd likely have not lived so long.

[Zeppy]

Not necessarily. Humans are hardwired to think (minus the Republican party). I would argue more often than not we choose the non violent path and it is simply a small minority (also known as the Republican party) that chooses the violent path.

Often rather than getting involved in situations humans take the pacifistic route and opt to avoid involvement. Robberies for example, one idiot is choosing a violent method to advance his aims, yet the majority (if not all) the people in the store probably will step out of the way and not use violence to intervene in the situation. It is a calculated position and more often than not we come to the conclusion that violence is not the answer.

Yes, all the Republican do not think. HURR-DURR!

Now to get that out of the way..
Not really. The majority have two options: fight or flight. Half will run away, half will fight.

Not necessarily, what about bystanders who just stand and watch? They are not choosing either option. Fight or flight is usually the instinctual reaction when placed in immediate danger usually by complete surprise.

Another example, criminals don't always fight or run from the police, sometimes they give up.

On the first instance, it is one of those rare occasions where people are too frighten to do anything.
The second instance is when people actually use reason.

Most people use instinct in that moment of danger. It is then after the event that people begin to reason and make a calculated position.

[Lord-General Drache]

To prevent a further threadjack of this, I'm opening this here.

Are humans innately violent or altruistic or do we as a species socialize these behaviours?

Edit: Thanks Kat. Reposting poll too.

Yes, we are indeed hard-wired to hurt and hate anything and anyone different from our culture. It's what kept the small tribal villages together--an instinct to be repulsed by what is different, perceive it as a threat (after all, the other village wants resources, too), and squash it.

Social psychology further states that altruism is a load of shit. Cultures are never altruistic, there is always some sort of reward (praise, "karma," fame/attention, inevitable money from "doing good"), and individuals very rarely, if ever, are.
Mother Theresa, for instance, said that she needed people to be poor and suffer so she could be holy and happy. Hell, she even used alot of the money donated to her "cause" to spam more convents, instead of using the money to directly help the community. Ghandi was a bit of a racist.

People often laud others for being "altruistic," but rarely do they want to peek behind the proverbial curtain to see the glee the person gets when they are inevitably rewarded.

[The Alma Mater]

I don't think humans are any more or less violent than any other animal. There is always some logic behind violence we just prefer to label it 'senseless violence'.

As I mentioned, we are. Most mammals that fight with others within the same species for mates, dominance or whatever do not fight to the death.
We do.

[West Failure]

I don't think humans are any more or less violent than any other animal. There is always some logic behind violence we just prefer to label it 'senseless violence'.

As I mentioned, we are. Most mammals that fight with others within the same species for mates, dominance or whatever do not fight to the death.
We do.

Where are these human fights to the death for mates going on?

[Lackadaisical2]

I don't think humans are any more or less violent than any other animal. There is always some logic behind violence we just prefer to label it 'senseless violence'.

As I mentioned, we are. Most mammals that fight with others within the same species for mates, dominance or whatever do not fight to the death.
We do.

Um, mayhaps you're ignoring that the vast majority of fights don't end in more than a couple bruises?

Humans don't NORMALLY fight to the death, but sometimes we do, as I imagine, oft' times a mammal is mortally wounded in such a scuffle.

[The Alma Mater]

I don't think humans are any more or less violent than any other animal. There is always some logic behind violence we just prefer to label it 'senseless violence'.

As I mentioned, we are. Most mammals that fight with others within the same species for mates, dominance or whatever do not fight to the death.
We do.

Where are these human fights to the death for mates going on?

"Crime passionel" ?
But true, fights for dominance and territory happen on a slightly bigger scale. We tend to call them "wars".

[Lackadaisical2]

I don't think humans are any more or less violent than any other animal. There is always some logic behind violence we just prefer to label it 'senseless violence'.

As I mentioned, we are. Most mammals that fight with others within the same species for mates, dominance or whatever do not fight to the death.
We do.

Where are these human fights to the death for mates going on?

"Crime passionel" ?
But true, fights for dominance and territory happen on a slightly bigger scale. We tend to call them "wars".

I'd guess that has a bit to do with the fact that humans are (or were) stationary- if you lose your farm and associated stuff, you've lost your living, if a lion loses it's territory, it just has to wander over a bit and hope it can find a spot.

Further, don't forget that wars generally involve quite a small % of the populace, and until recently more died from disease and infections than enemy fire.

[Araraukar]

Humans both help and hurt instinctively. Social constructions allow us to do both to the same person.

[Pope Joan]

Walter Burkert, author of Creation of the Sacred; Tracks of Biology in early Religions, http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/BURCRE.html

says that evolution has bred into our species a tendency toward altruism because it promotes the survival of the species.

Let's say a person sees a craft about to founder, and its occupants die. If life is all about self interest, he shrugs and lets it go.

But if he has inherited an altruism gene, he will risk his life to save those others.

Which is good for the species.

[The Kropotkinite Union]

Yes, we are programmed to love Johnny Cash in our DNA.

^^THIS.

[Kitarmania]

Being violent/altruistic is NOT the same as being indifferent/being nice. Being altruistic involves being philanthropic in nature, and being violent involves being physically hurtful. Humans are NOT innately violent. If we were, then there wouldn't be two thirds of people that kill themselves after killing someone else. Also, there are hospitals made specifically for veterans who suffer psychological trauma for the violence experienced in war, and seeing or experiencing violence at any age can dramatically alter psychological perception.

However, if there is an idea that any society at any time has expressed, it's altruism. There are always levels of respect and honor. ALWAYS.

[Conserative Morality]

Humans are inherently selfish. The selfishness leads to violence. Somewhat strangely, it also leads to altruism due to the social nature of humans, increasing everyone's (And by extension, your own) chances of survival and passing on your genes.

[Kitarmania]

In what way does selfishness lead to violence? And if by selfish you mean we innately look out for number one, that's not selfishness--it's survival. Selfishness is when your life DOESN'T depend on requiring what you're aiming to get, and many people get rid of that aspect of themselves through maturity. You need to psychology more.

[Unterzagersdorf]

Deleted

[My 3rd Floor Flat]

Scientists and psycologists have determined that humans need sex, fire and hitting things to be happy.

So quite possibly yes.

[Kitarmania]

Every behavior conceivable is a socialized, learned behavior.

Human nature is defined as the psychological attributes that are assumed to be shared by all human beings. Therefore, the implication of the term is that certain psychological, hence mental behaviors are in some way "hardwired" into a person. We are thus supposedly born with some preset psychological inclinations.
The notion of human nature is largely mythological. It stems from primitive religious dualities that the human is good or evil inherently. The pursuit of people who seek the gene, or the like, which is supposedly the cause of a particular behavior is essentially a form of superstition. It is like a person being possessed by demons which control their actions.
The fact is, while neurochemicals and physiological traits set propensities for a person's reactions and social gravitation, it is the environment which really creates our values and behavior. There is no fixed, predetermined "human nature." Our values, methods, and actions are developed and derived from experiences. The bottom line is that our behavior is based on what we learn, coupled with the bio-social pressures that we must deal with in order to survive.

This is obviously the least scientific answer that anyone could seriously put. NO scientist would firmly state this. It is so known in the psychological and biological world that we don't know where human behavior stems from that even now we are conducting experiences testing behavior on cognitive, genetic, and natural levels.

[Kitarmania]

Also, buddy, human nature is not officially defined as anything more than the nature of humans.