Griefers at the Engineers

everything that supports my preconceived opinions is absolutely rock solid and everything that doesn't is bunk and I will call it "research" in air quotes and mock the idea of it existing at all
What was that? Not sure what you're insinuating, but I do respect science and scientists. Just not every next populist who pretends to be "scientific".
 
Last edited:

Arguendo

Volunteer Moderator
Are we there yet?
The topic has shifted, which is fine at this point. There are however a few things that aren't fine.
  • Long or short versions of "No u"
  • Discussing users and not their arguments
Stay away from those things (and all other forum rules ofcourse) and you won't have to sit on the sidelines and read this thread.
 
What was that? Not sure what you're insinuating, but I do respect science and scientists. Just not every next populist who pretends to be "scientific".
That's fine.

But argument from authority are irrelevant

Psychology is a science, whether you like it or not. The problem is, I never, not once, brought up psychology, so you this is all irrelevant anyway. I was talking about EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY, and if you think either Sagan or Dawkins have a problem with that, then you aren't as familiar with them as you thought you were.
 
Far more studies exist, and are accepted as well, that suggest the opposite. The counter studies that you cite are relatively new, and fewer, in comparison. But of course, that's the point I was making...that there is more to human nature than just selfishness and that selflessness IS a real thing. So you're agreeing with me...just taking a much stronger stance on in it than the full body of research supports.

That's the problem with trying to take a stance far to either side of the debate. People ARE selfish but they also ARE altruistic and selfless. Varying people have varying degrees of either trait. Some of it is biological, as there is an evolutionary reason for both traits. In fact, there are theories that suggest that even the fact that some people are more selfish than others is the result of evolution. For society to work, we need both types of people according to these researchers.

In short, you're making the same mistake that he is, but in the opposite direction of the equation. Of course, that's human nature as well....to find things to support one's own view while ignoring everything that counters it.
The problem with the studies he mentioned is the interpretation. The article he linked (note: not a study) is an interpretation of a series of studies that actually ignores the conclusion of most of them. It has a massive anti-capitalist ideological bent. Science has no political bias. It is fact, it is not, or we don't know. The article he linked is attempting to explain the results according to how it's seen through a particular 'lens'.

Philosophers have been arguing about whether people are inherently selfish since there has been such a thing as philosophers. In Plato's "Republic," Socrates has a discussion with his older brother Glaucon in which Glaucon insists that people's good behavior actually only exists for self-interest: People only do the right thing because they fear being punished if they get caught. If human actions were invisible to others, Glaucon says, even the most "just" man would act purely for himself and not care if he harmed anyone in the process.

It's the sort of argument that might have appealed to Thomas Hobbes, the 17th-century English philosopher famous for saying that the natural state of man's life would be "nasty, brutish and short." According to Hobbes, humans must form social contracts and governments to prevent their selfish, violent tendencies from taking over.

Not all philosophers have agreed with this dour point of view, however. Philosopher John Locke, for example, thought that humans were inherently tolerant and reasonable, though he acknowledged humanity's capacity for selfishness.

But philosophers are great at asking questions, not getting answers. So what does the science say? In fact, you're right in that people are quite willing to act for the good of the group, even if it's against their own interests, studies do show this. But paradoxically, social structures that attempt to give people incentives for good behavior can actually make people more selfish.

Take a classic example: In 2000, a study in the Journal of Legal Studies found that trying to punish bad behavior with a fine backfired spectacularly. The study took place at 10 day care centers in Haifa, Israel. First, researchers observed the centers for four weeks, tracking how many parents arrived late to pick up their children, inconveniencing the day care staff. Next, six of the centers introduced a fine for parents who arrived more than 10 minutes late. The four other centers served as a control, for comparison. (The fine was small but not insignificant, similar to what a parent might have to pay a babysitter for an hour.)

After the introduction of the fine, the rate of late pickups didn't drop. Instead, it nearly doubled. By introducing an incentive structure, the day cares apparently turned the after-school hours into a commodity, the researchers wrote. Parents who might have felt vaguely guilty for imposing on teachers' patience before the fine now felt that a late pickup was just something they could buy.

The Haifa day care study isn't the only one to find that trying to induce 'moral' behavior with material incentives can make people less considerate of others. In a 2008 review in the journal Science, Bowles examined 41 studies of incentives and moral behavior. He found that, in most cases, incentives and punishments undermined moral behavior.

For example, in one study, published in 2000 in the journal World Development, researchers asked people in rural Colombia to play a game in which they had to decide how much firewood to take from a forest, with the consideration that deforestation would result in poor water quality. This game was analogous to real life for the people of the village. In some cases, people played the games in small groups but couldn't communicate about their decisions with players outside their group. In other cases, they could communicate. In a third condition, the players couldn't communicate but were given rules specifying how much firewood they could gather.

When allowed to communicate, the people in the small groups set aside self-interest and gathered less firewood for themselves, preserving water quality in the forest for the larger group as a whole. Regulations, on the other hand, had a perverse result over time: People gradually began to gather more and more firewood for themselves, risking a fine but ultimately putting their self-interest first.

"People look for situational cues of 'acceptable behavior,'" Bowles said. "Literally dozens of experiments show that if you offer someone a money incentive to perform a task (even one that she would have happily done without pay), this will 'turn on' the 'What's in it for me?' way of thinking, often to such an extent that the person will perform less with the incentive than without."

All of this, as well as studies that show similar behaviour in other animal species, is indicative of selfishness being a perfectly natural survival mechanism. Let's face it, one good CME hits us and goodbye all the luxuries and conveniences of modern society. What allows us to be more 'altruistic' is just that, the convenience to do so. When Mazlow's heirarchy of needs is fulfilled, we have time and energy to spare to help others achieve their's, which is in and of itself as much an element of self-interest as it is caring for others, because the survival of the species is within our self-interest. But when the survival of the species is under threat, people will become more interested in survival of the self over others. Those who remain interested in the survival of others over themselves will be taken advantage of. When civilisation, and the conveniences that make rule by law possible, are out the window, then all that is left is 'might makes right'.

The thing most people keep doing here is conflating 'selfishness' with its negative connotations, as if selfishness is antithetical to virtue. But I guarantee you, something you are doing in your life is the product of that very selfishness inherent to all of us. I would bet every cent I earn for the rest of my life that this is the case in 100% of all living things.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the studies he mentioned is the interpretation. The article he linked (note: not a study) is an interpretation of a series of studies that actually ignores the conclusion of most of them. It has a massive anti-capitalist ideological bent. Science has no political bias. It is fact, it is not, or we don't know. The article he linked is attempting to explain the results according to how it's seen through a particular 'lens'.

Philosophers have been arguing about whether people are inherently selfish since there has been such a thing as philosophers. In Plato's "Republic," Socrates has a discussion with his older brother Glaucon in which Glaucon insists that people's good behavior actually only exists for self-interest: People only do the right thing because they fear being punished if they get caught. If human actions were invisible to others, Glaucon says, even the most "just" man would act purely for himself and not care if he harmed anyone in the process.

It's the sort of argument that might have appealed to Thomas Hobbes, the 17th-century English philosopher famous for saying that the natural state of man's life would be "nasty, brutish and short." According to Hobbes, humans must form social contracts and governments to prevent their selfish, violent tendencies from taking over.

Not all philosophers have agreed with this dour point of view, however. Philosopher John Locke, for example, thought that humans were inherently tolerant and reasonable, though he acknowledged humanity's capacity for selfishness.

But philosophers are great at asking questions, not getting answers. So what does the science say? In fact, you're right in that people are quite willing to act for the good of the group, even if it's against their own interests, studies do show this. But paradoxically, social structures that attempt to give people incentives for good behavior can actually make people more selfish.

Take a classic example: In 2000, a study in the Journal of Legal Studies found that trying to punish bad behavior with a fine backfired spectacularly. The study took place at 10 day care centers in Haifa, Israel. First, researchers observed the centers for four weeks, tracking how many parents arrived late to pick up their children, inconveniencing the day care staff. Next, six of the centers introduced a fine for parents who arrived more than 10 minutes late. The four other centers served as a control, for comparison. (The fine was small but not insignificant, similar to what a parent might have to pay a babysitter for an hour.)

After the introduction of the fine, the rate of late pickups didn't drop. Instead, it nearly doubled. By introducing an incentive structure, the day cares apparently turned the after-school hours into a commodity, the researchers wrote. Parents who might have felt vaguely guilty for imposing on teachers' patience before the fine now felt that a late pickup was just something they could buy.

The Haifa day care study isn't the only one to find that trying to induce 'moral' behavior with material incentives can make people less considerate of others. In a 2008 review in the journal Science, Bowles examined 41 studies of incentives and moral behavior. He found that, in most cases, incentives and punishments undermined moral behavior.

For example, in one study, published in 2000 in the journal World Development, researchers asked people in rural Colombia to play a game in which they had to decide how much firewood to take from a forest, with the consideration that deforestation would result in poor water quality. This game was analogous to real life for the people of the village. In some cases, people played the games in small groups but couldn't communicate about their decisions with players outside their group. In other cases, they could communicate. In a third condition, the players couldn't communicate but were given rules specifying how much firewood they could gather.

When allowed to communicate, the people in the small groups set aside self-interest and gathered less firewood for themselves, preserving water quality in the forest for the larger group as a whole. Regulations, on the other hand, had a perverse result over time: People gradually began to gather more and more firewood for themselves, risking a fine but ultimately putting their self-interest first.

"People look for situational cues of 'acceptable behavior,'" Bowles said. "Literally dozens of experiments show that if you offer someone a money incentive to perform a task (even one that she would have happily done without pay), this will 'turn on' the 'What's in it for me?' way of thinking, often to such an extent that the person will perform less with the incentive than without."

All of this, as well as studies that show similar behaviour in other animal species, is indicative of selfishness being a perfectly natural survival mechanism. Let's face it, one good CME hits us and goodbye all the luxuries and conveniences of modern society. What allows us to be more 'altruistic' is just that, the convenience to do so. When Mazlow's heirarchy of needs is fulfilled, we have time and energy to spare to help others achieve their's, which is in and of itself as much an element of self-interest as it is caring for others, because the survival of the species is within our self-interest. But when the survival of the species is under threat, people will become more interested in survival of the self over others. Those who remain interested in the survival of others over themselves will be taken advantage of. When civilisation, and the conveniences that make rule by law possible, are out the window, then all that is left is 'might makes right'.

The thing most people keep doing here is conflating 'selfishness' with its negative connotations, as if selfishness is antithetical to virtue. But I guarantee you, something you are doing in your life is the product of that very selfishness inherent to all of us. I would bet every cent I earn for the rest of my life that this is the case in 100% of all living things.
Ok, now replicate those studies :)
 
Ok, now replicate those studies :)
Why would I do that when it's already been done time and again?

I think a lot of people are misconstruing what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that humans are incapable of helping one another. That much is obviously untrue. I'm talking about our motivations for doing so. It's nice to think, for most people, that doing things for others for 'selfless' reasons is virtuous, but that's only because 'selfishness' has been socially stigmatised, so in order to get along with other people in a way that's within our best interests (ie not being ostracised for 'wrongthink'), we are, ironically, selfishly going along with the idea that selfishness is a bad thing, to look virtuous to those around us.

This is where the phrase 'virtue signalling' comes from. "Hey, look at me, I'm virtuous, not selfish at all!" The purpose, conscious or subconscious, is to raise your visibility and standing within the social contract itself.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the studies he mentioned is the interpretation. The article he linked (note: not a study) is an interpretation of a series of studies that actually ignores the conclusion of most of them. It has a massive anti-capitalist ideological bent. Science has no political bias. It is fact, it is not, or we don't know. The article he linked is attempting to explain the results according to how it's seen through a particular 'lens'.

Philosophers have been arguing about whether people are inherently selfish since there has been such a thing as philosophers. In Plato's "Republic," Socrates has a discussion with his older brother Glaucon in which Glaucon insists that people's good behavior actually only exists for self-interest: People only do the right thing because they fear being punished if they get caught. If human actions were invisible to others, Glaucon says, even the most "just" man would act purely for himself and not care if he harmed anyone in the process.

It's the sort of argument that might have appealed to Thomas Hobbes, the 17th-century English philosopher famous for saying that the natural state of man's life would be "nasty, brutish and short." According to Hobbes, humans must form social contracts and governments to prevent their selfish, violent tendencies from taking over.

Not all philosophers have agreed with this dour point of view, however. Philosopher John Locke, for example, thought that humans were inherently tolerant and reasonable, though he acknowledged humanity's capacity for selfishness.

But philosophers are great at asking questions, not getting answers. So what does the science say? In fact, you're right in that people are quite willing to act for the good of the group, even if it's against their own interests, studies do show this. But paradoxically, social structures that attempt to give people incentives for good behavior can actually make people more selfish.

Take a classic example: In 2000, a study in the Journal of Legal Studies found that trying to punish bad behavior with a fine backfired spectacularly. The study took place at 10 day care centers in Haifa, Israel. First, researchers observed the centers for four weeks, tracking how many parents arrived late to pick up their children, inconveniencing the day care staff. Next, six of the centers introduced a fine for parents who arrived more than 10 minutes late. The four other centers served as a control, for comparison. (The fine was small but not insignificant, similar to what a parent might have to pay a babysitter for an hour.)

After the introduction of the fine, the rate of late pickups didn't drop. Instead, it nearly doubled. By introducing an incentive structure, the day cares apparently turned the after-school hours into a commodity, the researchers wrote. Parents who might have felt vaguely guilty for imposing on teachers' patience before the fine now felt that a late pickup was just something they could buy.

The Haifa day care study isn't the only one to find that trying to induce 'moral' behavior with material incentives can make people less considerate of others. In a 2008 review in the journal Science, Bowles examined 41 studies of incentives and moral behavior. He found that, in most cases, incentives and punishments undermined moral behavior.

For example, in one study, published in 2000 in the journal World Development, researchers asked people in rural Colombia to play a game in which they had to decide how much firewood to take from a forest, with the consideration that deforestation would result in poor water quality. This game was analogous to real life for the people of the village. In some cases, people played the games in small groups but couldn't communicate about their decisions with players outside their group. In other cases, they could communicate. In a third condition, the players couldn't communicate but were given rules specifying how much firewood they could gather.

When allowed to communicate, the people in the small groups set aside self-interest and gathered less firewood for themselves, preserving water quality in the forest for the larger group as a whole. Regulations, on the other hand, had a perverse result over time: People gradually began to gather more and more firewood for themselves, risking a fine but ultimately putting their self-interest first.

"People look for situational cues of 'acceptable behavior,'" Bowles said. "Literally dozens of experiments show that if you offer someone a money incentive to perform a task (even one that she would have happily done without pay), this will 'turn on' the 'What's in it for me?' way of thinking, often to such an extent that the person will perform less with the incentive than without."

All of this, as well as studies that show similar behaviour in other animal species, is indicative of selfishness being a perfectly natural survival mechanism. Let's face it, one good CME hits us and goodbye all the luxuries and conveniences of modern society. What allows us to be more 'altruistic' is just that, the convenience to do so. When Mazlow's heirarchy of needs is fulfilled, we have time and energy to spare to help others achieve their's, which is in and of itself as much an element of self-interest as it is caring for others, because the survival of the species is within our self-interest. But when the survival of the species is under threat, people will become more interested in survival of the self over others. Those who remain interested in the survival of others over themselves will be taken advantage of. When civilisation, and the conveniences that make rule by law possible, are out the window, then all that is left is 'might makes right'.

The thing most people keep doing here is conflating 'selfishness' with its negative connotations, as if selfishness is antithetical to virtue. But I guarantee you, something you are doing in your life is the product of that very selfishness inherent to all of us. I would bet every cent I earn for the rest of my life that this is the case in 100% of all living things.
You might want to check out Loss Aversion studies as a better motivator for moderating a behavior. IMO, the primary source of angst with the whole PVE/PVP zeitgeist is loss aversion for both sides.

I've posted many times the problem isn't the players. It's the house that FDEV built.
 
You might want to check out Loss Aversion studies as a better motivator for moderating a behavior. IMO, the primary source of angst with the whole PVE/PVP zeitgeist is loss aversion for both sides.

I've posted many times the problem isn't the players. It's the house that FDEV built.
I know you have. And I know where you're getting that conclusion from. The problem is, you conclusion has not accounted for a wide range of variables. I've gone over them with you previously too, the most notable of which is choice, but you continue to ignore them, which is why I won't be having that conversation with you. You believe whatever you want to. You're going to anyway.
 
Why would I do that when it's already been done time and again?

I think a lot of people are misconstruing what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that humans are incapable of helping one another. That much is obviously untrue. I'm talking about our motivations for doing so. It's nice to think, for most people, that doing things for others for 'selfless' reasons is virtuous, but that's only because 'selfishness' has been socially stigmatised, so in order to get along with other people in a way that's within our best interests (ie not being ostracised for 'wrongthink'), we are, ironically, selfishly going along with the idea that selfishness is a bad thing, to look virtuous to those around us.

This is where the phrase 'virtue signalling' comes from. "Hey, look at me, I'm virtuous, not selfish at all!" The purpose, conscious or subconscious, is to raise your visibility and standing within the social contract itself.
Lots of studies in that field are not of very high quality and in fact are not reproducible at all.
 
I know you have. And I know where you're getting that conclusion from. The problem is, you conclusion has not accounted for a wide range of variables. I've gone over them with you previously too, the most notable of which is choice, but you continue to ignore them, which is why I won't be having that conversation with you. You believe whatever you want to. You're going to anyway.
Player variables? Player choice to play the game in one way or another? My knight took your pawn and you didn't like it because I feinted with my bishop? Maybe I hit the move timer with a certain glee that was inappropriate? C'mon. The rules are the rules. If players offend each other within the box, that's on the players. If the rules don't make sense, then the complaint is with the game designer, not the other players. This game, like all other mmos has evolving rules. Embrace it. Focus on the rules and not the players.
 
Player variables? Player choice to play the game in one way or another? My knight took your pawn and you didn't like it because I feinted with my bishop? Maybe I hit the move timer with a certain glee that was inappropriate? C'mon. The rules are the rules. If players offend each other within the box, that's on the players. If the rules don't make sense, then the complaint is with the game designer, not the other players. This game, like all other mmos has evolving rules. Embrace it. Focus on the rules and not the players.
I'm fine with the rules

And I'm fine with the players.

This is your problem, not mine, and it's not one you've sufficiently qualified for me to care about.
 
Familiar enough. I know less than half of the studies you cited are not reproducible and a good chunk of them are contradicted in other studies.
You're wrong. Many of them have already been reproduced, multiple times.

And a good chunk of climate research is contradicted in other studies as well.

A contradiction does not alter reality.

One of my favourite studies of all time on the topic is one that looks at how to use human selfishness to save the environment. It's worth a read, because it directly cites a range of studies that replicate and confirm one another on the subject of human selfishness.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707135?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

One of the biggest problems facing the reproduction of scientific study, is data freedom. You have to keep that in mind. This stuff isn't easy when funding bodies behave like competing interests. Additionally, reproducing studies is only one factor of confirming results. An even stronger factor is the predictive power of the results. If I conduct a study and it's never reproduced, not once, but I use its results to predict outcomes with 100% or close to it success, that science can be confirmed that way. Remember that when you read the study above.
 
The problem with the studies he mentioned is the interpretation. The article he linked (note: not a study) is an interpretation of a series of studies that actually ignores the conclusion of most of them. It has a massive anti-capitalist ideological bent. Science has no political bias. It is fact, it is not, or we don't know. The article he linked is attempting to explain the results according to how it's seen through a particular 'lens'.
...
Are you still talking with me, above me or over me? :D

The studies I mentioned were a quick shot cause I couldn't find the original citations in a trice. The experiments I'm talking about already started in 1739 by David Hume and also neuropsychologists from today are examining this topic. From what I've gathered there seems to be a clear tendency for babies between 6 and 10 month for altruistic helpful deeds. These experiments and their results are, as far as I'm aware, widely accredited in professional circles. And just because these experiments were cited from various leftist sources doesn't make them any less true. While Dawkins on the other hand has a more than doubtable reputation amongst professionals. Not sure if you actually defend this pseudo scientist though...
...
And a good chunk of climate research is contradicted in other studies as well.
A "good chunk" is how far exactly in your terminology from a "majority"?


but thanks to this discussion I found how controversial and complex this topic actually is:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/
 
Last edited:
While Dawkins on the other hand has a more than doubtable reputation amongst professionals.
That depends on whom you consider as 'professionals', and judging by what you consider to be 'credible science', you're on the ideological end of things. Dawkins is more respected than you give him credit for, which is why I suspect you are basing your conclusion of him on your own selfish sense of disrespect for him. But that doesn't matter.

You're still arguing from authority. Credibility is determined by results, not the person who's providing the results. I've provided studies, direct links to them. I've been looking at the ones you claim to support your conclusions, and found so far that they don't. Perhaps you have something I haven't seen yet? Because so far, nothing you've shown me, when stripped of ideology, actually concludes what you claim it does.

And for the record, there are no legitimate scientific institutes on the face of the planet that reject, in any way, the work that Dawkins has done, or his credibility as a scientist. There are a few illegitimate ones, like so-called 'christian science' institutions. But no legitimate ones. Not one.
 
...
And for the record, there are no legitimate scientific institutes on the face of the planet that reject, in any way, the work that Dawkins has done, or his credibility as a scientist. There are a few illegitimate ones, like so-called 'christian science' institutions. But no legitimate ones. Not one.
Oh. I see now where you are coming from. You're one of those 'alternate reality guys' (to say it in the least possible political manner).
But you're right, doesn't matter. We just have no common ground for a fruitful discussion. But you are totally wrong if you think I'm refusing the evolutionary theory as such (only in Dawkins wild interpretations) nor am I a christian (I'm an atheist myself). My disdain for Dawkins actually came from reading one of his books that I started to read very open minded (was recommended by a friend), only to find such an unbelievable huge heap of hogwash.
 
Last edited:
Oh. I see now where you are coming from. You're one of those 'alternate reality guys' (to say it in the least possible political manner).
But you're right, doesn't matter. We just have no common ground for a fruitful discussion.
No, I'm one of those 'actual reality guys'. In actual reality, and all politics aside because they are irrelevant here, Dawkins is highly respected by legitimate scientific institutes. Can you name one that proves me wrong? Or are these childish reprimands and accusations all you have?

Something that you have to understand me is that I like being right. Which means if I'm wrong, I actually do really want to know. But in order to accept that I'm wrong and need to adjust my understanding, it will take evidence to convince me. Not ideology, not guesses, and certainly not vindictive attacks on my character, but evidence.

....only to find such an unbelievable huge heap of hogwash.
Hogwash according to whom and/or what evidence? Dawkins presents his, where's yours?

Also, if you recall, I said: "There are a few illegitimate ones, like so-called 'christian science' institutions. "

Note I said "like so called 'Christian science' institutions", which means it's not exclusive to them. There are many ideological groups that think they have a monopoly on scientific discovery, but don't have an ounce of scientific credibility to back it up, including but not limited to religious and political institutions. But religion and politics are not science. Not even remotely.
 
Last edited:
You're wrong. Many of them have already been reproduced, multiple times.

And a good chunk of climate research is contradicted in other studies as well.

A contradiction does not alter reality.

One of my favourite studies of all time on the topic is one that looks at how to use human selfishness to save the environment. It's worth a read, because it directly cites a range of studies that replicate and confirm one another on the subject of human selfishness.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707135?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

One of the biggest problems facing the reproduction of scientific study, is data freedom. You have to keep that in mind. This stuff isn't easy when funding bodies behave like competing interests. Additionally, reproducing studies is only one factor of confirming results. An even stronger factor is the predictive power of the results. If I conduct a study and it's never reproduced, not once, but I use its results to predict outcomes with 100% or close to it success, that science can be confirmed that way. Remember that when you read the study above.
Some things can be refuted though. I was not talking about altering or contradicting reality.

Predictive powers are all great and such but we are talking human behaviour, therefore sample sizes and even more statistics noise.

I also like replicability and cold fusion :)
 
Top Bottom