✯✯✯ Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis

Saturday, August 28, 2021 5:32:19 PM

Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis



It cannot Into The Wild: The Evolution Of Tragedy the claims of universal human rights. All histone modifications measured in this study show predominantly asymmetric patterns at transcription-factor-binding sites. Oxford: Oxford Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis Press. The shape decomposition process is strand aware. Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis of transcription factor Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis sites across related yeast species. These differences affect the livelihood and happiness of Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis. See also Rahe, Republics Ancient and Modernp. KuiperChristopher Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis.

Are We Naturally Good? Dave Girgenti at TEDxCapeMay 2013

Due to the fact that people always seek to attain what is beneficial to them, Hobbes observed that the desire and aspiration to acquire things that were alike in the society is the reason for competition. It presented a dilemma: how can mere people of the state overthrow the king without it being considered treason? Both philosophers were supporters of individual equality and freedoms. The two contrast in that Hobbes theorizes a contract exists between the sovereign and the people, once you agree to the sovereign, he cannot be overthrown and you are at his mercy. He also feels that social order begins with a state of nature. However, Locke feels the government is conditional and can be overthrown if the people are not represented correctly.

These differences affect the livelihood and happiness of people. These are different because, while Locke agrees with protecting peoples lives such as Hobbes did, he also believed more than just lives should be protected. Hobbes believes that in order to suppress human nature, the people must elect for a sovereign to be chosen and establish moral guidelines for society. This is the only way for people to become organized and not be at war with each other; the only way to suppress human nature in its natural form.

Now with this newly elected sovereign, there might be conflict where people do not think that one man should have so much power over so many. People will be reduced once again to act like animals and constantly be at war with everyone and will find themselves back in that natural state of selfishness and greed. They do however have similar ideas, such as how man is born with a perfect state of equality that is before any form of government and social contract. Hobbes and Locke both believe in self-preservation but how each of them get there is very different. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself. Over the centuries, many political philosophers, historians, and thinkers have ventured to identify the ideal form of government: a theory which truly takes into account human nature as a whole and applies it accordingly.

Human nature, when looked at holistically, is essentially good - men will not annihilate each other if left without a ruler, but motivation, protection, and some degree of rights must be accommodated in order to allow a state to thrive to its greatest capacity. Thus a ruler should be judged by his ability to protect the people and secure their rights, and he should come to power by the collective consent of the people. The perfect government is one in which the ruler has only the power which allows him to aid the people and the state, protect their rights, and ensure their protection. Society and the sovereign are reciprocally obliged towards each other, and they may only be content as long as both factions are appeased.

When someone chooses to do something, they are affirming that they believe what they choose to be good—otherwise, they would not have chosen it. Sartre says that he will next clarify three concepts: anguish , abandonment , and despair. Each human project is a response to the shared human condition and so every action expresses a set of values common to all people. Sartre says that people can either confront or choose to ignore their anguish. Now that Sartre has explained the basic tenets of existentialism to his audience, he turns to an in-depth explanation of some of his most misunderstood conclusions. Sartre also continues to engage his philosophical predecessors. In fact, Sartre argues, believing in predetermined values is lying to oneself about the true source of values: our actions.

Abandonment and Atheism. Sartre argues that this moral dilemma cannot be resolved through received doctrine—either choice would violate an apparent moral obligation, and the choice of which doctrine to follow or how to measure his feelings for his mother would itself be a moral choice. Sartre says that the only way the student could prove he loves his mother enough that he ought to stay with her would be to actually prove his love by choosing to stay; at the end of the day, principles reflect rather than determine actions. The example of the student demonstrates that, although moral codes often seem like consistent guides to action, they fail to provide guidance in many real-world situations where people have no choice but to violate a moral rule.

This fact of free choice allows people to build their individual moral compasses but it also makes them wholly responsible for the outcomes of their actions. The man was given a scholarship to a religious school but found little success in any of his subsequent endeavors and decided that his failures in the secular world must have been a sign from God telling him to join the Jesuit order. Here, he is suggesting that it is their fault for misinterpreting him.

He then addresses the Communis t objection that this means that existentialism cannot accommodate solidarity, since, to be effective in their actions, people have to rely on others. He argues here for a close attention to circumstances and a practical attitude toward action, rather than an idealistic faith that things will work out if one has the right goal in mind. This is because existentialism blames people for their own moral shortcomings rather than explaining them by recourse to environment or temperament. For Sartre, existentialism is a deeply optimistic doctrine: it argues that people are capable of moral improvement because they freely choose their actions and are responsible for their choices.

This contrasts with opposing doctrines that lay the blame for wrong actions on forces outside peoples control, thereby suggesting that people are powerless to overcome their weaknesses and moral failings. For them, one can only discover oneself in this way, but for Sartre, discovering oneself is also discovering others. His notion of intersubjectivity is deeply indebted to earlier thinkers, most of all Hegel and Heidegger, who argue in various ways that the individual human is a fundamental product of interpersonal life because people require the recognition of others to realize that they themselves are moral actors.

Although Sartre does not believe in a universal human nature, he argues that there is a universal human condition. Sartre turns to the three remaining criticisms of existentialism , which also center on its subjectivism. The next objection is that existentialism makes all values meaningless and would therefore let people choose to do whatever they like. Sartre replies that, even though one must choose what to do, doing nothing is still a choice—people are forced to make a choice. In fact, researchers have found that some nonliterate tribes still in existence today have complete taxonomic knowledge of their environment in terms of animal habits and plant life.

They have systematized their vast and complex world. In the Stone Age, such capabilities were not limited to the natural environment. To prosper in the clan, human beings had to become expert at making judicious alliances. They had to know whom to share food with, for instance—someone who would return the favor when the time came. They had to know what untrustworthy individuals generally looked like, too, because it would be foolish to deal with them.

Thus, human beings became hardwired to stereotype people based on very small pieces of evidence, mainly their looks and a few readily apparent behaviors. Whether it was sorting berries or people, both worked to the same end. Classification made life simpler and saved time and energy. Your classification system told you instantly. Every time a new group came into view, you could pick out the high-status members not to alienate. And the faster you made decisions like these, the more likely you were to survive. Sitting around doing calculus—that is, analyzing options and next steps—was not a recipe for a long and fertile life. And so classification before calculus remains with us today. People naturally sort others into in-groups and out-groups—just by their looks and actions.

In fact, research has shown that managers sort their employees into winners and losers as early as three weeks after starting to work with them. People are complex and many sided. But it is illuminating to know that we are actually programmed not to see them that way. This perhaps helps to explain why, despite the best efforts of managers, some groups within organizations find it hard to mix. The battle between marketing and manufacturing is as old as—well, as old as marketing and manufacturing.

The techies of IT departments often seem to have difficulty getting along with the groups they are supposed to support, and vice versa. Everyone is too busy labeling others as outsiders and dismissing them in the process. A final point must be made on the matter of classification before calculus, and it comes in the area of skill development. Lists are attractive and often memorable. But advanced math and science education largely relies on sophisticated models of processes—complex explanations of cause and effect in different circumstances. It also advocates probabilistic ways of thinking, in which people are taught to weigh the combined likelihoods of different events together as they make decisions.

Many people may come to understand and use these methods—weather forecasters and investment analysts are examples—but even lengthy training cannot fully eliminate our irrational and simplifying biases. Along with a scarcity of food, clothing, and shelter, and the constant threat of natural disaster, the Stone Age was also characterized by an ever-shifting social scene. From one season to the next, it was not easy to predict who would have food to eat, let alone who would be healthy enough to endure the elements. In other words, the individuals who ruled the clan and controlled the resources were always changing.

Survivors were those who were savvy enough to anticipate power shifts and swiftly adjust for them, as well as those who could manipulate them. They were savvy because they engaged in, and likely showed a skill for, gossip. That has always been true in human society. The people who chat with just the right people at just the right time often put themselves in just the right position. In fact, it is fair to assume that human beings have stayed alive and increased their chances of reproducing because of such artful politicking. What are the implications for managers? And since the interest in rumors is ingrained into human nature, it makes little sense to try to eliminate such interest by increasing the flood of official communications.

Rather, managers would be smart to keep tabs on the rumor mill. They might even use their own networks to plug into the grapevine. But when it comes to gossip, it may be that managing by wandering about is the most effective way to communicate, as long as it is performed in a climate of trust and openness. Empathy and Mind Reading. Simply stated, these two skills are the building blocks of gossip. People are much more likely to hear secrets and other information if they appear trustworthy and sympathetic. Likewise, people with a knack for guessing what others are thinking tend to ask better—that is, more probing and leading—questions. Thus, because empathy and mind reading abet the survival skill of gossip, they too became hardwired into the human brain.

At the same time, people are also programmed for friendliness. Sharing food was the basis for the cooperative exchange with relative strangers in the hunter-gatherer clan. Human beings, or at least those who survived, became adept at building peaceful social alliances and carrying out negotiations with win-win outcomes. We can see barter and trade even among very young children at play.

And so it is that friendly exchanges of information and favors remain our preferred way of dealing with nonfamily and a key to building political alliances for social success. The good news for managers on this front is that empathy and friendliness are, in general, positive dynamics to have around the organization. It pays to empathize with customers, for instance, and we can assume that things like commitment and loyalty grow when employees are friendly to one another. The bad news is that the instinct for empathy very easily leads us to imagine that people are more similar to ourselves, as well as more competent and trustworthy, than they really are.

Further, the drive to act friendly can make delivering bad news—about performance, for instance—very difficult. The employment interview is one situation that exploits the capacities for friendliness and imaginative empathy to its fullest extent. Our natural tendency to sympathize with the person across the table drives us to make excuses for their weaknesses or to read more substance into their work or personal experiences than truly exists. At the same time, our programming for classification—sorting people into in-groups and out-groups—can make us harshly judge those who appear to be in the out-group. We will even focus on and exaggerate the differences we perceive.

Thus, strict controls and lengthy training are needed to make interviews effective procedures for objective judgment, and even then they remain highly vulnerable to empathy and mind-reading biases. Contest and Display. Finally, status in tribal groups was often won in public competitions. Such competitions were not introduced by human beings; indeed, they were dramas commonly played out by primates. To establish status in early human societies, people especially males frequently set up contests, such as games and battles, with clear winners and losers.

Likewise, they displayed their status and mental gifts in elaborate public rituals and artistic displays. The underlying purpose of such practices was to impress others. Successful—that is, high-status—and healthy males were thought to produce strong and intelligent progeny. For survival-driven females, determined not only to reproduce but to nurture their babies once they arrived, such males were…well, irresistible. For their part, women found contests amongst themselves unnecessary, although they did seek to be more attractive than one another so they could have the prime pick of high-status males.

And so the ingrained male desire to do public battle and display virility and competence persists today. That should not surprise any denizen of the corporate world. Men are forever setting up contests between themselves to see who will be promoted, win a new account, or gain the ear of leaders. Winners of these contests are frequently given to public displays of chest thumping. And even in organizational settings, which would benefit from cooperation, men frequently choose competition. The answer is sensitive territory, because it gets into the inborn differences between men and women and what that means for managers.

Some heralded the concept of the so-called Mommy Track—a term not coined by Schwartz, by the way—but many feminists excoriated her work. Suffice it to say, then, that managers should be aware that you can urge men to refrain from one-upmanship, but you may be fighting their programming. In addition, companies might ask themselves if their rules of success were written by men and for men. It might be that the reason most women are not breaking the glass ceiling is because they find those rules abhorrent—or at the very least, against their nature.

When all is said and done, evolutionary psychology paints a rather illuminating picture of human thinking and feeling. We may wish human beings were more rational, but our brains, created for a different time and place, get in the way. But the truth is, today we need rationality more than ever. The world is increasingly complex, and we must make harder, more layered decisions faster and faster. Of course, people have devised wonderful instruments to help predict and manage uncertainty. On modern trading floors, for example, computer modeling is widely used to estimate risks and probabilities in an unbiased fashion.

Traders and managers collectively pore over risk-bearing market positions to limit financial exposure. Reward and punishment systems encourage openness about loss and heavily penalize concealment. Responsibility for different elements of trading deals is divided across functions to prevent an individual from committing fraud. But even with these controls and safeguards, it is a sure thing that enormous costs are still being incurred through the exercise of human irrationality in these and other complex information-based environments. Evolutionary psychologists contend, however, that our primitive psychorationality, so well adapted to the precarious life of hunter-gatherers, will continue to call the tune whenever it is free to do so.

In the choices businesspeople make, one can expect the hidden agendas of emotion, loss aversion, over-confidence, categorical thinking, and social intuition to continue regularly to prevail. Evolutionary psychology thus suggests how important it is for us to have a clear view of our biased natures so that we can construct a mind-set to guard against their worst consequences. Along with the workings of the human mind, evolutionary psychology also explores the dynamics of the human group.

How does natural selection explain the ways in which people organize? What aspects of social behavior can be explained by our evolved circuitry? To identify our programming for social living, scientists in the field of evolutionary psychology have looked for common features across human societies, past and present, and extrapolated from them what must be biogenetic. The concept of coevolution is critical to this method of analysis—the idea that cultures and social institutions are adaptations that make compromises between environmental conditions, such as food supply and population density, and the enduring characteristics of human psychology.

So, as comparative anthropologists have pointed out, when one looks across the astonishing variety of human societies, one repeatedly encounters common themes, dilemmas, and conflicts. These common factors are inborn and drive many aspects of social relations today. Organizational Design. Like the primates that came before them, human beings were never loners. Indeed, the family is the centerpiece of all human societies. But no family would have survived the Stone Age without additional support.

Clans on the Savannah Plain appear to have been similar in one key way: they contained up to members, according to Robin Dunbar, professor of psychology at the University of Liverpool. In his research, Dunbar found a linear relationship between the brain size and troup size of social primates. The larger the brain, the larger the size of the group. Now, it may appear that other species have groups larger than members. We see thousands of moose together, for instance. But these are not clans in the way people configure or experience them. There is no binding connection or social organization among moose. They simply gather into mating groups—a single male with his many female mates and their offspring.

Human beings organize socially. They are held together by the bond of communities, although maintaining such communities is a complex matter. It involves a lot of brain power—remembering people, forging alliances, and keeping promises are all advanced mental tasks. It may very well be for this reason that we see the persistent strength of small to midsize family businesses throughout history.

Family-owned companies account for a great deal of big business, too, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. And in the West, many major companies are underpinned by substantial interlocking family networks. Of course, many companies today employ more than people. And many of these businesses struggle with the tendency of people to break off into cliques, or of functions, departments, or even teams to come into conflict with one another. In recent years, many companies have sought to deal with this complexity through matrix management. Yet it has proved to be one of the most difficult and least successful organizational forms. The reason? Evolutionary psychologists contend that matrix forms are inherently unstable due to the conflicting pulls toward too many centers of gravity.

In addition, we Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis the irreproducible discovery rate IDR Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis measure to provide a robust and conservative Rwanda Genocide of the threshold where two ranked lists of results from biological replicates Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis longer Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis that is, Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis irreproducibleand we applied this to defining sets of discrete elements. Christopher St. Emotions Before Reason. White Collar Crime legal right is a right Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis enjoys the recognition and Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis of the law. Natural law is a theory in Filicide Case Summary and philosophy that says that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis reasoning and behavior. McLean, C. This Sex Without Love Poem Analysis no small measure of the contemporary moral and Human Nature Is Inherently Good Analysis significance of the doctrine of human rights.

Current Viewers: