Question about the human nature

[Dobermann92]

I have a very serious question about the human nature, which I wanted to discuss a long time. What is with most of humanity angered about others disagreeing with their opinions. I like to argue with others about things but I never try to silence them or yell at them harmful messages, I can live on with my life after that. But there are people on the left, on the right and on the center even (although this is the least likely) who are pissed off easily with differentiating opinions. For example some of the religious folks wants to convert or silence you no matter what if you tell them that you are not religious. Some of the communists wants to silence you if you disagree with them. Some of the football fans wants to beat you if you say that your favourite sports team isn't theirs. Some of the gamers will try to censor you if you don't like a game and point out it's bugs.
Why can't these people just go on their life with their opinions? When I ask back most of the time they say I hurt their feelings disagreeing with them. So what? It is like they are emotionally invested in defending their opinion. Nobody wants to censor them on the other side, but yet they have to push their agenda. Are they insecure or there is something else going on in the background? This is a very interesting question for me, because I've never felt that I have to censor anybody because of their opinions. Of course there are dangerous ones which we have to point out, but censoring it just validates them.
I would like to know more about this, especially of the sociological and biological nature of it, so any book recommendations are welcomed here. What is your opinion about the topic?

 

[novcze]

Good question, maybe it have something to do with narcissism or other psychological traits?

 

[Danoff]

Becoming angry and forceful in the face of perceived injustice helps to remove (or suppress) harmful individuals from a group and make the group more likely to survive and spread.

 

[Dobermann92]

Becoming angry and forceful in the face of perceived injustice helps to remove (or suppress) harmful individuals from a group and make the group more likely to survive and spread.

But it can be contra-productive too. Like some folks telling the group not to eat a certain fruit or they will be poisoned and die, but they outcast them because of their opinion. Then they all die because of they thought they knew better.
Real life example could be Galilei who had to revoke his tenets because it was against the teachings of the Bible, which most of the people (even him) believed in back then. The heliocentric model isn't something which would seem like harmful, except for the feelings of the church.

 

[Danoff]

But it can be contra-productive too. Like some folks telling the group not to eat a certain fruit or they will be poisoned and die, but they outcast them because of their opinion. Then they all die because of they thought they knew better.
Real life example could be Galilei who had to revoke his tenets because it was against the teachings of the Bible, which most of the people (even him) believed in back then. The heliocentric model isn't something which would seem like harmful, except for the feelings of the church.

The poison example is more applicable than the Cassini/Aristarchus of Samos heliocentric example. The heliocentric model didn't cause or stop people from procreating, so it doesn't affect something like brain wiring for natural selection fitness.

In the poison example, I think people do actually believe things, maybe too often, when they are associated with temporal causality. We're hard wired for that kind of thinking. Our propensity to link death with poisoned or tainted food or particular behavior is so ingrained that we have trouble accepting random chance - which leads people to religion.

At it's core though, our forceful anger in the face of injustice (which is partly what political discussions are about) is helpful for getting rid of and suppressing those who are doing wrong. Richard Dawkins goes into length about why mutually beneficial genetics for things like picking the ticks out of the hair of your neighbor if they'll reciprocate and pick the ticks out of yours are beneficial to the group as a whole. And getting pissed off when they don't reciprocate is part of that.

 

[Dobermann92]

At it's core though, our forceful anger in the face of injustice (which is partly what political discussions are about) is helpful for getting rid of and suppressing those who are doing wrong. Richard Dawkins goes into length about why mutually beneficial genetics for things like picking the ticks out of the hair of your neighbor if they'll reciprocate and pick the ticks out of yours are beneficial to the group as a whole. And getting pissed off when they don't reciprocate is part of that.

Oh, this makes more sense to me. I've only read one book from Richard Dawkins, the God Delusion, which was to be honest well written, but pretty boring. I like his youtube videos and documentarys though. Maybe I'll pick the Selfish Gene from him next time, because I heard that is very good.

So it was a beneficial trait which gone way too overboard, I see. So are we supressing these traits or have some other genetical mutation which makes us to be more rational than others?

I'm also interested in global politics and I've seen this big shift on the left, which was traditionally the more rational side of the political spectrum (I know communism exists, but the base of it is also rational, although too utopistic) to this sensitive censoring agenda, which I think is against the individual rights. Education is more important and more successful to combat bad ideas in my opinion than banning them.

 

[mustafur]

How many people can be friends with someone that has a vastly different political opinion compared to them self(especially in social politics), even if they connect with them on alot of other different issues, it's one of those opinions many can't go past.

This in my opinion is causing alot of people who agree on most things to be complete enemies of each other when they probably think the same way on life mostly, and the rise of social media has made this worse.

 

[Danoff]

So it was a beneficial trait which gone way to overboard, I see. So are we supressing these traits or have some other genetical mutation which makes us to be more rational than others?

To an extent, we suppress these traits. It's one of the big take-home points that Dawkins makes in his books. While you may have a genetic propensity to do something, you are not a slave to that, you have a brain which can over-ride your biological urges. It's why you don't constantly eat and cheat. It's why some people restrain themselves and have a rational conversation instead of a fight. Popular culture teaches you that there is something magical and trustworthy in your emotions and instincts. But for the most part they merely represent biological programming - which is sometimes helpful and sometimes counter productive.

 

[TheNuvolari]

I had similar situations before about this too, just in opposite of your example.

Every time my teacher mentoins she believes in God one of my classmates always attacks her with brutal words, he says all the churches should be already demolished and the Pope should be dead.

Come on, I find it totally acceptable that he doesn't believe in God, maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but why the heck he must be so agressive? I have a great atheist friend, I said to him that I believe in God, he just shrugged. I think that's the best reaction I encountered so far.

 

[Dobermann92]

To an extent, we suppress these traits. It's one of the big take-home points that Dawkins makes in his books. While you may have a genetic propensity to do something, you are not a slave to that, you have a brain which can over-ride your biological urges. It's why you don't constantly eat and cheat. It's why some people restrain themselves and have a rational conversation instead of a fight. Popular culture teaches you that there is something magical and trustworthy in your emotions and instincts. But for the most part they merely represent biological programming - which is sometimes helpful and sometimes counter productive.

Emotions are overrated indeed. Of course we need some emotions to be empathic, which is also very helpful for the society to thrive. Unfortunately there is a very big split in humanity nowadays regarding to science versus emotions, because there are a lot of gulible people who think science is bogus and they are taken advantage of by scammers and charlatans.

I had similar situations before about this too, just in opposite of your example.

Every time my teacher mentoins she believes in God one of my classmates always attacks her with brutal words, he says all the churches should be already demolished and the Pope should be dead.

Come on, I find it totally acceptable that he doesn't believe in God, maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but why the heck he must be so agressive? I have a great atheist friend, I said to him that I believe in God, he just shrugged. I think that's the best reaction I encountered so far.

Your classmate's behavior is very weird, I have several atheist friends, but none of them are this agressive. Calling for violence is unacceptable no matter what is the case in my opinion. That is very tribalistic, which rational people should be against. I wouldn't shrug either in this case, but I wouldn't try to convince you over and over again if you are not interested in the topic. I know a lot of religious people who are also very reasonable and they don't infringe on my rights, so I don't really care about their religious beliefs.

However I would be interested in your reason for belief, although that would be too off topic, but because I'm a Hungarian just like you, you can feel free to PM me if you want to explore this territory in our native language.

 

[FoRiZon]

It's very sad considering the trend nowadays, especially in the United States.

I am very convinced we just having an inch from a many of literal civil wars across the world.

 

[novcze]

Every time my teacher mentoins she believes in God one of my classmates always attacks her with brutal words, he says all the churches should be already demolished and the Pope should be dead.

Maybe your classmate see her as someone who is preaching from the position of authority or power (as a teacher), which can trigger this reaction?

However should be mentioned that atheist are not some group with tribalistic traits. Atheist is an individiual who don't belive in the existence of deities and this is the only thing atheists have in common.

 

[Dobermann92]

It's very sad considering the trend nowadays, especially in the United States.

I am very convinced we just having an inch from a many of literal civil wars across the world.

Unfortunately it isn't only in the United States. China is starting to use a programme which rate citizens according to their behaviour and monitor them all day. Other countries are starting to revoke human rights every week or kill or imprison the ones who fight for it (Russia, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia, etc.). In the core EU countries they go way too overboard with their politics and they are so disconnected with the people that the radical right is on the rise because of them.

People are becoming angrier and angrier all over the world. This is a very horrifying trend indeed.

 

[Danoff]

Unfortunately it isn't only in the United States. China is starting to use a programme which rate citizens according to their behaviour and monitor them all day. Other countries are starting to revoke human rights every week or kill or imprison the ones who fight for it (Russia, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia, etc.). In the core EU countries they go way too overboard with their politics and they are so disconnected with the people that the radical right is on the rise because of them.

People are becoming angrier and angrier all over the world. This is a very horrifying trend indeed.

So, on the human nature side, this makes sense. It is our sense of justice and fairness mixed with natural selection that leads us to fight perceived injustice. I get the anger. What is causing it though? It's the perceived entitlement to mess with your neighbor. If people are convinced that it's none of their business who their neighbor goes to bed with, then they don't feel like an injustice has been done when their neighbor goes to bed with a certain kind of person. But when they've been told that it's their prerogative to eliminate certain kinds of bedtime behavior, then they get angry when if some cultures don't carry it out. Likewise, the people who have been stopped from engaging in their preferred behavior also get angry.

If you tell people that they are responsible for their well being and the well being of their children and that what other people are doing has no bearing on that (the truth), then they don't get angry when someone else has a little more than they do. If you tell people that resources in their country are supposed to be divided equally, and that it's everyone's moral obligation to help everyone, then they get super upset when someone else has more than they do. And then when they try to take it, the people whom it is taken from get upset.

It's an emotional attachment to justice, which has served us well up to the point where we got confused about justice.

 

[justin credible]

I have a very serious question about the human nature, which I wanted to discuss a long time. What is with most of humanity angered about others disagreeing with their opinions. I like to argue with others about things but I never try to silence them or yell at them harmful messages, I can live on with my life after that. But there are people on the left, on the right and on the center even (although this is the least likely) who are pissed off easily with differentiating opinions. For example some of the religious folks wants to convert or silence you no matter what if you tell them that you are not religious. Some of the communists wants to silence you if you disagree with them. Some of the football fans wants to beat you if you say that your favourite sports team isn't theirs. Some of the gamers will try to censor you if you don't like a game and point out it's bugs.
Why can't these people just go on their life with their opinions? When I ask back most of the time they say I hurt their feelings disagreeing with them. So what? It is like they are emotionally invested in defending their opinion. Nobody wants to censor them on the other side, but yet they have to push their agenda. Are they insecure or there is something else going on in the background? This is a very interesting question for me, because I've never felt that I have to censor anybody because of their opinions. Of course there are dangerous ones which we have to point out, but censoring it just validates them.
I would like to know more about this, especially of the sociological and biological nature of it, so any book recommendations are welcomed here. What is your opinion about the topic?

A very good question I have run through my mind a few times. I can only think that people who cannot accept a different opinion may have some narcissistic traits. Many arguments which spill over to shouting or violence usually start with a difference of opinion, sad really when people cannot accept different views and even more sad when each half of the argument carries vary valid points and one individual chooses to accept their preferred views the other cannot accept that without getting aggressive.

I usually find Religion Politics and Sport are the main conversations when people start to take offence when they must be the most discussed topics people have, you would think by now 2019 people would have learned to accept different opinions.

May be because there is such a wide scope of opinions in these subjects it causes problems for some people who have closed minds to anything different.
I did read a very good report from a psychologist on the subject which led us to believe some people whom have lower IQs than the average person are basically ignorant and make their mind up on a subject and close their minds to any other option to their beliefs.
I will post a link to it when I find it again. On the whole I asked a lot of questions with a lot of the findings in the report mainly because I am sure we all know people who are both open and closed on certain subjects and are quite intelligent people.

I am married so a difference of opinions raises it's head a lot...…...money children holidays but as adults we always sit down talk it out and listen to each other without shouting and it works as sometimes she is correct and most the time I am correct.

 

[Dobermann92]

Another interesting topic for me is that I feel the more radical somebody is the less likely to have a decent sense of humor and show any happy emotions or feelings. The far-right folks usually take everything too seriously, it seems like they don't understand what makes a joke good, they think there are things you should never joke with. (religion, race, nationality, etc.) The far-left folks are also cannot understand jokes, especially edgy ones so they want to ban them. They use the same mentality as far-right people, but at least they have a name for it in the term "triggering". If you take life this seriously you will be angry and sad and frustrated all the time, we need some kind of relief or humor to cope with the cruelness of the world. What do you think, they become radicals because they think they are more entitled than others (so this is a biological thing, their brain works different from the average Joe) or is it due to the group mentality which indoctrinates people so heavily that they lose most of their sense of humor?

 

[Mr Tree]

Emotions are overrated indeed. Of course we need some emotions to be empathic, which is also very helpful for the society to thrive. Unfortunately there is a very big split in humanity nowadays regarding to science versus emotions, because there are a lot of gulible people who think science is bogus and they are taken advantage of by scammers and charlatans.


Your classmate's behavior is very weird, I have several atheist friends, but none of them are this agressive. Calling for violence is unacceptable no matter what is the case in my opinion. That is very tribalistic, which rational people should be against. I wouldn't shrug either in this case, but I wouldn't try to convince you over and over again if you are not interested in the topic. I know a lot of religious people who are also very reasonable and they don't infringe on my rights, so I don't really care about their religious beliefs.

However I would be interested in your reason for belief, although that would be too off topic, but because I'm a Hungarian just like you, you can feel free to PM me if you want to explore this territory in our native language.

Don't say it's acceptable, but it is understandable. As an example, my best friend has EPP which is an 'allergic' reaction to light, any blue light so even lightbulbs. If you then get raised in a society that says there is a god that loves you while acting like you're a bad person because you don't believe in the being that supposidly created you and loves you yet let's you live in agony. At that poiny I can understand very well why you're mad at religious people.

Also religious people don't realise how cruel some of the things they say are. As perfect example you can take hell. Yet when that issue gets raised no one bats an eye.

What do you think, they become radicals because they think they are more entitled than others (so this is a biological thing, their brain works different from the average Joe) or is it due to the group mentality which indoctrinates people so heavily that they lose most of their sense of humor?

I became more radical in my views when I realised that what my fellow citizens see as the left side of the spectum was far from left combined with a party that used that. A party that doesn't want compromise or a solution that's negotiated and gets a lot of voted due to this.

Well if compromise is not part of our politcal system no more, well I wont compromise my views towards those specific people.

On the humor aspect I like a good edgy joke yet when people create discordgroups filles with only 'rascist' edgy jokes it's fair to start assuming 'just kidding' is not enough to get you off the hook.

Also while I get some things might be funny and I don't want to ban those jokes it's harder and harder to find certain jokes funny as it does impact peoples lives. Agaik with the caveat that I DON'T want to ban certain jokes.

 

[Dobermann92]

Don't say it's acceptable, but it is understandable. As an example, my best friend has EPP which is an 'allergic' reaction to light, any blue light so even lightbulbs. If you then get raised in a society that says there is a god that loves you while acting like you're a bad person because you don't believe in the being that supposidly created you and loves you yet let's you live in agony. At that poiny I can understand very well why you're mad at religious people.

I'm not mad at all religious people, I'm only mad at the leaders and the deceivers. Those should have the knowledge to know that some or most of the things isn't true what they are propagating.

I became more radical in my views when I realised that what my fellow citizens see as the left side of the spectum was far from left combined with a party that used that. A party that doesn't want compromise or a solution that's negotiated and gets a lot of voted due to this.

Well if compromise is not part of our politcal system no more, well I wont compromise my views towards those specific people.

You are the opposite of radical, you are a moderate, which is fine. I would like to see more negotiations in politics, but mostly they don't happen.

On the humor aspect I like a good edgy joke yet when people create discordgroups filles with only 'rascist' edgy jokes it's fair to start assuming 'just kidding' is not enough to get you off the hook.

Also while I get some things might be funny and I don't want to ban those jokes it's harder and harder to find certain jokes funny as it does impact peoples lives. Agaik with the caveat that I DON'T want to ban certain jokes.

I think we should treat jokes as jokes (unless it promotes direct harm to others, from which it should be banned), they don't impact other people's lives. We have to have some kind of toleration of bad jokes, because if we are oversensitive we will have a hard time surviving in the real world because that is unforgiving and unkind. You can choose of course not to tell bad or racist jokes, I would agree that if you are in a public place you shouldn't either, between friends it is acceptable for me. You can avoid those discord groups if you don't want to see those jokes.

 

[Mr Tree]

I think we should treat jokes as jokes (unless it promotes direct harm to others, from which it should be banned), they don't impact other people's lives. We have to have some kind of toleration of bad jokes, because if we are oversensitive we will have a hard time surviving in the real world because that is unforgiving and unkind. You can choose of course not to tell bad or racist jokes, I would agree that if you are in a public place you shouldn't either, between friends it is acceptable for me. You can avoid those discord groups if you don't want to see those jokes.

I agree with almost everything.
The one problem I don't know the solution to is those discord groups. The issue here is not so much that I don't want to see those 'jokes', the problem is that it creates a subset of society that's normalised to rascism. Also those groups get joined by young impressionable people and this can have long term effects on society.

I don't want to accept those images as a joke in the context of said groups. It could be a joke when standint alone, but when you group all those rascist jokes in one place it stops being a joke and starts being a reflexion of those peoples opinion.

Again I don't want to ban jokes, I just don't think we shouldn't accept the 'it's just a joke' response in these contexts.

Also I am oversensitive, we survive it's a harsh world from time to time and I'll need a little more time to myself to relax and process things.

 

[Dobermann92]

I agree with almost everything.
The one problem I don't know the solution to is those discord groups. The issue here is not so much that I don't want to see those 'jokes', the problem is that it creates a subset of society that's normalised to rascism. Also those groups get joined by young impressionable people and this can have long term effects on society.

I don't want to accept those images as a joke in the context of said groups. It could be a joke when standint alone, but when you group all those rascist jokes in one place it stops being a joke and starts being a reflexion of those peoples opinion.

Again I don't want to ban jokes, I just don't think we shouldn't accept the 'it's just a joke' response in these contexts.

Also I am oversensitive, we survive it's a harsh world from time to time and I'll need a little more time to myself to relax and process things.

You aren't oversensitive, because you don't want to ban the jokes. It is okay not to like them. I think racism has always been existed because our group mentality, those discord groups are just a more recent example of that. There always will be people who can be deceived but I think most of the young folks know what is and what isn't racism. Education is the key to combat racism and prejudice in my opinion, to combat bad family and group influence.

 

[Mr Tree]

You aren't oversensitive, because you don't want to ban the jokes. It is okay not to like them. I think racism has always been existed because our group mentality, those discord groups are just a more recent example of that. There always will be people who can be deceived but I think most of the young folks know what is and what isn't racism. Education is the key to combat racism and prejudice in my opinion, to combat bad family and group influence.

I understand it's currently normal. I just believe we should strive to get to a point where.that's not normal. I agree I currently do not know how.

I also meant I'm litterally oversensitive. The smallest things can make we feel overwelmd with whatever feeling it brings to me. The upside is knowing true joy. The downside being disapointed and melacholic (if that's the right word) a lot. For example I can lose myself in my hobbies as they bring pure joy, but just watching a rally or an interview about people living in poverty tears me up and really hurts me.

 

[Dobermann92]

I also meant I'm litterally oversensitive. The smallest things can make we feel overwelmd with whatever feeling it brings to me. The upside is knowing true joy. The downside being disapointed and melacholic (if that's the right word) a lot. For example I can lose myself in my hobbies as they bring pure joy, but just watching a rally or an interview about people living in poverty tears me up and really hurts me.

That is normal sensitivity in my opinion, I know that society wants to present men as hard, calm and collected. They show that strong men mask their feelings but I think this shouldn't be the case. I cried when Stephen Hawking died, I usually cry at the end of a movie or anime I like. If it doesn't affect your rational thinking then there is nothing wrong with that.