Human Nature

[Anonymous No.22431811]

Please post books about humans, human behavior, psychology, brain science, evolutionary biology, and anything that can help us learn more about the animal we are.

Pic related, a master class in human behavior

[Anonymous No.22432543]

Oops thread was bad and no one replied

[Anonymous No.22432546]

>>22431811
Great book. It's Reddit in the most positive sense of the word.

[Anonymous No.22432560]

- Biology: a Self-Teaching Guide by Steven Daniel Garber;
- The History of Life: a Very Short Introduction by Michael J. Benton;
- The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin;
- The Denial of Death - Ernest Becker;
- Escape from Evil - Ernest Becker.

[Anonymous No.22432639]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_in_the_Brain

[Anonymous No.22432640]

https://opentheory.net/principia-qualia/

[Anonymous No.22432644]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10%2C000_Year_Explosion

[Anonymous No.22432685]

>>22432560
Becker is shit

[Anonymous No.22432755]

>>22432640
This reads like schizo ramblings

[Anonymous No.22432907]

Oliver Sacks

[Anonymous No.22432925]

>>22432907
more like oliver nutsacks lol

[Anonymous No.22432929]

>>22432546
>>22431811
I really enjoyed this guy's lectures on YouTube and have this on my to read. Worth?

[Anonymous No.22432970]

>>22431811
Begin with Freud

[Anonymous No.22432972]

>>22432560
Ernest Becker is a joke. He literally wrote about how women with penises were the highest form of the "whole" human form.

[Anonymous No.22433048]

>>22431811
>Pic related, a master class in human behavior
I remember that guy. He said humans have no free will, so I instantly knew he was a lobotomized academic. Please don't spread his works around

[Anonymous No.22433707]

>Sapolsky is also interested in the role of schizotypal disorders in the emergence and development of shamanism and the major Western religions. In this context, he has noted similarities between obsessive-compulsive behavior and religious rituals.
>Author of Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will (Penguin Press, 2023)
>Sapolsky was born in Brooklyn, New York, to immigrants from the Soviet Union. His father, Thomas Sapolsky, was an architect who renovated the restaurants Lüchow's and Lundy's.[4] Robert was raised an Orthodox Jew and spent his time reading about and imagining living with silverback gorillas.

[Anonymous No.22433726]

>>22431811
>>22432546
>>22433048
>>22433707
>determinist, no choices and no hope
>but pedophilia is wrong, racism is wrong
>you should feel bad about what your ancestors did, but Koreans eating dogs is fine, you're not allowed to object
How do these people live with this sort of dissonance?

[Anonymous No.22433748]

>>22433726
Worse, yet: they're materialist.

[Anonymous No.22433749]

>>22432972
He is right
You can't refute futa supremacy.
Cope and seethe. Dilate, even.

[Anonymous No.22433754]

>>22433726
Did he say all that or are those examples you came up with?

[Anonymous No.22433771]

>>22433726
Outing yourself as a pedophile racist is also bad, but there was no other thing you could've done. Your broken mind cannot function in a different way, you have no free will; from the moment your ancestors began shitting out your lineage this post was already there, you have no free will.

[Anonymous No.22433779]

>>22433754
Of course he did. The dog thing is directly from the book OP posted. He talks about judicial reform in an interview he did with Joe Rogan.
>>22433771
Anon, those are examples Sapolsky provides. You misunderstood, as you always will.

[Anonymous No.22433789]

>>22433779
I kneel.
The jew is unbased, but determinism is still the one true god.

[Anonymous No.22434355]

>>22433048
>>22433726

Good and evil, ethical and unethical, virtuous and vicious: all are artificial human values, all creations of our minds. There is no justification to support any of these values that isn't based on artificial constructs. This is why so many legal philosophies try to find some supreme and initial norm, some immutable norm, from which all other norms descend. This is where things like God, natural law, concepts like 'right to life, liberty, and property,' etc., come into play.

But the truth is that anything can be considered legislation. You can create laws that support a country or nation like Nazi Germany or The New Order in Indonesia, and you won't see the sky darken with shame or the sun dry up and wither to avoid witnessing what is happening. Electromagnetism and gravity won't become nauseated. There is no morality other than the synthetic morality created by our species.

As of today, there is no evidence of the existence of a personal God (beyond faith-based evidence), so you could say, yes, everything is permitted, everything can become law, because there is no supreme and unquestionable moral authority that supports our legal systems. Even the twisting and churning of our guts caused by witnessing the agony of others, even this empathetic response, ultimately isn't evidence that what causes visceral disgust should be considered a moral law: there is no logical construction that can sustain itself from the level of 'this is how it is' to the level of 'if this is how it is, then it must be seen in this or that way.'

To be truthful, even human actions we consider monstrous and cruel aren't, according to determinism, the 'offender's fault,' since, due to all the infinite causes and consequences that have piled up on the shoulders of that offender, their fate was already sealed when the universe was born. This means our concepts of 'guilty' are also fictions because no one truly has a choice to act in any way other than the way they will act.

With all that said, there is no doubt about the importance of our fictions, the importance of our social contract, the importance of our laws, the importance of our concepts of ethics and human dignity. Without these inventions, our civilization would be doomed to barbarism. These fictions are some of the most important technologies our species has ever created.

There is no evidence that any personal Deity from which our moral laws emanate exists. However, our species was intelligent enough to organize itself in a way that creates fictions to fill the dangerous void left by the absence of eternal and unshakeable moral, legal, and ethical values.

But in the end not even Hitler can be blamed for his actions without an appeal to moral fictions and freedom-of-will-fictions.

For anyone interested in legal issues in a world where there are no absolute values derived from a God or Natural Law, I suggest reading the works of Hans Kelsen.

[Anonymous No.22434363]

>>22433726
Even in a completely deterministic world pedophiles can’t be allowed to exist in society

[Anonymous No.22434378]

>>22434355
>absence of eternal and unshakeable moral, legal, and ethical values.
nigga bot read Kant already.

[Anonymous No.22434395]

a key influence on ted kaczysnki

[Anonymous No.22434397]

>>22433048
Explain why someone with free will would choose to waste their life on 4chan

[Anonymous No.22434481]

>>22434397
>lack of willpower=no freedom of will
bruh...

[Anonymous No.22434503]

>>22434378
Kant system is also based on artificial premises.

[Anonymous No.22434590]

>>22434503
You can make that statement. But without any arguments to support your case I will just assume you misunderstood him like so many others before you. Kant's system represents the same insight shared by Plato, so when you come at the king you best not miss.

[Anonymous No.22434664]

>>22434590
The distinction between descriptive statements about what "is" in nature and prescriptive statements about what "should be" is at the core of the "is-ought" problem in philosophy. This problem addresses the challenge of moving from observations about how things are in the world (descriptive statements) to making value judgments or moral claims about how things should be (prescriptive statements). This challenge highlights the potential gap between facts and values.

For example, the statement "I feel pain when someone stabs me" or "I feel pain when someone kills and eats my babies" describes an emotional and physical response that is a natural consequence of certain actions. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because these actions cause pain, they "should be" viewed as right or wrong.

This view contrasts with Kant's moral system, which is based on the categorical imperative and deontological ethics. Kant argues that moral principles are derived from reason and are universally applicable, independent of personal preferences or subjective judgments. According to Kant, actions are morally right or wrong based on their conformity to rational moral principles, rather than on the subjective feelings or consequences they produce.

Kant's moral system focuses on the rationality of actions and the inherent worth of rational beings. It emphasizes the importance of acting out of a sense of duty and following principles that can be consistently willed as universal laws. Kant's approach seeks to provide a rational and objective foundation for moral judgments that is not reliant on individual preferences or subjective feelings, in contrast to the view that links morality solely to the subjective experiences of pain and pleasure.

Cont.

[Anonymous No.22434669]

>>22434664
The distinction between descriptive statements about natural occurrences and prescriptive statements about morality is essential in understanding how ethical frameworks like Immanuel Kant's differ from subjective judgments based solely on personal experiences. While it's true that experiencing pain when someone stabs or when one's offspring are threatened is a natural reaction, it doesn't automatically translate to a moral judgment about what "should be" right or wrong.

The leap from "is" to "ought" faces the challenge of the naturalistic fallacy, where inferring morality from natural facts can be problematic. Just because something causes pain doesn't inherently dictate whether it is morally right or wrong. This is where Kant's moral system diverges.

Kant's deontological ethics, expressed through the categorical imperative, emphasizes the rational nature of moral principles. He argues that morality should be grounded in rational principles that can be consistently applied universally, regardless of personal feelings. Kant's framework is meant to provide an objective and universal basis for morality, rather than relying on subjective emotional responses to events.

However, one might argue that Kant's moral system is flawed because it's based on artificial principles of morality. This criticism suggests that Kant's emphasis on rationality might be detached from the complex and nuanced reality of human emotions and experiences. It could be argued that emotions play a significant role in shaping our moral intuitions, and thus Kant's framework might not fully capture the intricacies of human ethical decision-making.

In summary, the "is-ought" distinction reminds us that natural observations don't directly lead to moral conclusions. Kant's approach seeks to establish an objective moral framework through rational principles, which contrasts with the idea that morality is solely subjective. However, one could criticize Kant's system as overly reliant on rationality, possibly neglecting the role of emotions and personal experiences in shaping our understanding of right and wrong. This criticism, however, depends on one's perspective on the relationship between reason and emotion in moral philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22434742]

>>22434664
>>22434669
>cant make arguments of his own and forces a soulless bot to produce slop for him.
Kant understood the human condition and it is reflected in his writings. Something a bot can never do nor most people for that matter. True philosophers are a different breed and evidently out of your reach

[Anonymous No.22434784]

>>22434742
Kant morality isn’t based on any evidence that can be scientifically proved to exist (like elements of matter of physical forces), but depends of human perceptions about phenomena. So, although there is something in nature called pain, that can be detected via the study of nervous systems, there isn’t something perceivable in nature as “wrongness” or “immorallness” of this physical thing called pain.

I used a bot because I was at lunch break and it helped me to save time.

And what “human condition” means? What “good” and “bad” mean? What’s evidence, in nature, for something as being “immoral”?

I’m not saying that this synthetic values aren’t important, but they simply don’t exist in nature. They are human creations, so even if you use reason to find things that would be pleasurable and unpleasurable to all beings, even if you create a system of morality that is based on the avoidance of suffering for all creatures, there still remains the question that there’s not any natural evidence for seeing bodily or mental pain, for example (let’s say: the Neuro-chemistry of pain), as “bad” or “immoral” or “wrong”. Pain exists (there is a chemical and neurological process we call pain), but all moral perceptions about pain are artificial.

When you have that in mind all ethical systems become artificial. They are important, but there’s nothing like “Divinity” or “God” or “Human Nature” that can lend them the quality of being empirical.

[Anonymous No.22434837]

>>22433726
Have you tried not being a racist pedophile?

[Anonymous No.22434870]

>>22434481
Yes
If you have to fight your own brain to choose an action then you're suffering from biological determinism
If you're not actively making choices and just going with how you feel you have no free will

[Anonymous No.22434877]

>>22431811

[Anonymous No.22434885]

>>22433726
The concept of "choices" and "hope" still exist in a predetermined world. If people tell you that you should act a certain way or punishments will be enforced, both the structure of punishment and the people in favor of such punishment can be acting wholly along determinist lines and the result will be a system where undesirably things occur less. In short, everything is predetermined, but the concept of things being "wrong" and that you "should do this or that" are still part of the functional system, therefore no dissonance. The ancestor shame and ignoring other atrocities is a pathology though, but I find it interesting you went with Koreans eating a certain animal instead of, you know, China performing genocide against an ethnic minority while also forcing them to do labor and how this topic which would normally be the focus of mass outrage is basically unmentioned because of the geopolitical power of the country performing this genocide.

[Anonymous No.22435218]

>>22434885
Anon, the dog thing is an example Sapolsky himself uses to highlight a baseline relativism. In the same chapter, he discusses the indefensibility of ethnic cleansing. That's not a coherent position.

[Anonymous No.22435294]

>>22433048
we make automatic decisions based on unconscious processes that are influenced by our genetics and environment

[Anonymous No.22435322]

>>22435294
that's just cope code for
>nobody can be culpable for anything ever, except the cishet whites

[Anonymous No.22435450]

>>22434397
Path of least resistance. It is easier to waste time on 4channel instead of growing by learning a skill.

[Anonymous No.22435504]

>>22431811
Jung Collected Works

[Anonymous No.22435543]

>>22433726
Leftism is a powerful mind virus that can cripple even very intelligent people.

[Anonymous No.22435585]

>>22433726
Easy: they get paid for it

[Anonymous No.22435587]

>>22433789
Your god is Satan, then

[Anonymous No.22435591]

>>22434355
Are you a creation of my mind, too?

[Anonymous No.22435594]

>>22434837
Why wouldn’t you want to, anyway? Don’t like blacks and kids are sexy.

[Anonymous No.22435630]

>>22435591
All the responses from that guy are actually just ai responses from a prompt. You can tell if you have a soul.

[Anonymous No.22435662]

sapolsky in his youtube lecture series pushes for gould's punctuated equilibrium theory, tries to downplay heredity, and starts the entire lecture series off by moralizing about eugenics. He's actually a subversive and I presume his book is just the cliffnotes version of his lecture series

[Anonymous No.22435667]

>refuse to spend 90 second to understand what someone means when they state humans do not have free will
>Spend 4 minutes angrily typing a response to every thread you see while casually browsing 4chan on the subject for the rest of your life

[Anonymous No.22435701]

>>22434870
>And that's why it's not my fault I'm a fat slop. It's my genetics and no fault of my own :^)
Whatever fattie

[Anonymous No.22435729]

>make an inane statement that stems from the 17th century that goes against modern common sense
>gets upset when people say its a retarded position to take

[Anonymous No.22435752]

>>22435630
Are you religious by any chance?

[Anonymous No.22435948]

>>22434363
Why not? If there's no objective truth, why should that be the case?

[Anonymous No.22437070]

>>22435662
having watched his lecture series and read this book, pretty much on the money. Still enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.22437326]

>>22437070
Would you say educational value the entire book is marred by this, or can one just ignore the preaching bits?

[Anonymous No.22437421]

>>22437326
Look up his book on Goodreads and other sources. Remember, you're on 4chan right now. Do you think the average 4chsn poster has a measured look on reality?

I found that here barely preaches, is rather honest and direct if he does interject his own opinions, and takes a measured approach throughout the entire book.

[Anonymous No.22437518]

>>22434784
>But muh Positivism!!
Its funny how you come across as a brainless semen slurper

[Anonymous No.22437675]

>>22433048
His next book coming out in October is about that topic. You should give it a read, Anon

[Anonymous No.22437707]

>>22435752
Are you in good standing with your father, by chance? See I can make baseless accusations too!

[Anonymous No.22437762]

>>22437518
Explain why positivism is wrong using only evidences that can be empirically verified.

[Anonymous No.22438411]

>>22437675
>oh so you think his views are retarded on a fundamental level? You should BUY his new book where he expands upon them in excruciating detail.
Shill plz :/

[Anonymous No.22438634]

>>22432560
at least recommend descent of man if you're gonna suggest books you haven't read.

[Anonymous No.22438874]

>>22433789
God is the one true god. Things are mostly predetermined but God left some wiggle room for us to see if we are based or cringe.

[Anonymous No.22440088]

>>22431811
>pick up book because it was actually recommended on /lit/
>go into it blind
>Start reading the first or second chapter
>Author mentions something about his wife getting out of the car and yelling at someone for a minor traffic incident
>Uses the Holocaust as his reference point for morally extreme behavior
>"What a minute"
>pull up Wikipedia
>Jewish
I didn't ask for these powers.

[Anonymous No.22441565]

>>22440088
check em

[Anonymous No.22441579]

>Behave
no, I don't think I will

[Anonymous No.22441641]

>>22441579
devilish

[Anonymous No.22442506]

>>22441579
Beehive

[Anonymous No.22442605]

>>22431811
>learn more about the animal we are.

[Anonymous No.22442616]

>>22442605
>christfags in 20243

[Anonymous No.22444207]

>>22431811
stop insulting God's creation,just because we have similarity to animals doesnt mean we are in fact animals.
we are made in God's image for christ sake.

[Anonymous No.22444366]

>>22432929
The book is basically the lectures you already watched, but with more added on and a weird psudo-political stint at the very end. Overall I think it's worth reading if you enjoyed his lectures, gives you a bit more to think about.

[Anonymous No.22444374]

Greatly enjoyed this book, goes into great detail about sexual selection and how it applies to humans.