Human nature

[Libertarian guy]

I want to read more about human nature. Do you know good books about the goodness of human nature? Most people seem to think, that human nature is evil and that we need big goverment or autoritarian parenting. I want to read more about the opposite view.

[Think Free]

I want to read more about human nature. Do you know good books about the goodness of human nature? Most people seem to think, that human nature is evil and that we need big goverment or autoritarian parenting. I want to read more about the opposite view.

 

If human nature is basically evil, that's a reason NOT to concentrate coercive power. Only an angel wouldn't be corrupted by power. I am pretty sure, and you can do the research on this yourself, if it interests you, that the U.S. "founding fathers" generally believed that human nature is basically evil and therefore government should be as small as possible.

 

EDIT: Just to reinforce the point. Governments aren't made up of non-humans; majorities or any other group don't seem to be generally more moral than individuals. In fact, if anything, groups of people seem to be generally less moral than individuals acting alone.

[Zimobog]

There are lots of Enlightenment era books to read by guys like Locke, Smith, Hume, Kant about human nature, moral theory.

You sound like you are spending all your time arguing with Hobbesian and Calvinist people.

[Libertarian guy]

@Zimobog I spend also time in other things than arguing about libertarianism. But a lot of people, I speak do have a negative view about human nature.But what book or what philosopher do you advice most. Locke, Smith, Hume or Kant?

@Think Free I think, that vision is less effective. Because a lot of conservative people (wrong kind of conservatives) think, there are a lot of enemies abroad and therefore we need a strong state, with a big military and a lot of wars, because we must target them, before we target them. The same people defend often violence against children. They think, that children need to be slapped to correct their behaviour...

[Think Free]

@Think Free I think, that vision is less effective. Because a lot of conservative people (wrong kind of conservatives) think, there are a lot of enemies abroad and therefore we need a strong state, with a big military and a lot of wars, because we must target them, before we target them. The same people defend often violence against children. They think, that children need to be slapped to correct their behaviour...

 

Trying to convince people one way or the other about human nature is what's ineffective, since it's almost impossible to prove and libertarians win the argument either way.

 

If people are basically good, they don't need rulers. If people are basically evil, it makes a strong state absolutely dangerous. Remember citizens are far more likely to be killed by their own government than by a foreign government or terrorist.

 

If people are basically evil, that still doesn't justify preemptive war--you might as well say, people are basically evil, therefore I should kill myself before I hurt someone.

 

I personally find that people's view of human nature tends to flip-flop depending on what point they're trying to defend. If they're defending socialism, people are basically good. If they're defending regulation, people (at least, business owners) are basically bad. If they're defending regulators, the power of politicians, or majority rule, people suddenly become basically good again. 

 

Statists that claim that humans are basically good just mean that the rulers and the people who benefit from the government are basically good and the people who are hurt are basically evil. Statists that claim that humans are basically evil just mean that the people the government attacks and controls are basically evil, and the rulers are basically good.

[Libertarian guy]

@Think freeAnd how you think about parenting if people are basically evil? Some people say that you must correct the behaviour of children with slamming them. Doesn't that fit in the vision that people are basically evil?

[LovePrevails]

[Think Free]

@Think freeAnd how you think about parenting if people are basically evil? Some people say that you must correct the behaviour of children with slamming them. Doesn't that fit in the vision that people are basically evil?

 

"Do not overcome evil with evil, but overcome evil with good." Why should spanking be effective on basically evil children, but not effective on basically good children? 4 possibilities exist: humans are basically evil, and spanking them is correct; humans are basically evil, and spanking them is not correct;  humans are basically good, and spanking them is correct; or humans are basically good, and spanking them is not correct. This is, of course, if the whole question of "basically evil" or "basically good" even makes sense. It is not a priori clear that spanking is the right thing to do to basically evil children. It's not like evil is substance that can be knocked out of the child.

[Panoptic]

I don't believe human nature exists. It amounts to an accumulation of "instincts" that we somehow are born with. But how can this be substantiated? I will elicit two quotes from "The Psychology of Self Esteem" by Nathaniel Branden in which he discusses this issue in the first few chapters as an introduction.

 

...science's growing recognition that traits and activities alleged to be "instinctive" are either: (a) not universal to the species...; or (b) the product of learning, as in the case of sexual behavior -- which is so simple for the organism to attain, that virtually all members of the species who develop normally, exhibit it; and/or © the product of the interactions of simple reflexes and learning...

 

(Branden, The Psychology of Self Esteem, pp. 26-27)

 

"Instinct" is a concept intended to bridge the gap between needs and goals, bypassing man's cognitive (i.e., reasoning and learning) faculty.

 

(Branden, The Psychology of Self Esteem, pp. 23)

 

We can see that "instinct" is entirely oblivious to our ability to learn. It completely ignores the fact that we can learn things as a result of our self-consciousness and therefore concludes that we have some sort of strange, magical knowledge wired into our brain from birth. I believe Stefan has said about the same thing, and has also said that humans are "rational" upon brith, not "good". Correct me if I am wrong though.

[STer]

Why do people assume that all humans have the same "good" or "evil" nature? Could it not be that some people's nature is generally "good" and some people's nature is generally "evil"?

[PatrickC]

We can see that "instinct" is entirely oblivious to our ability to learn. It completely ignores the fact that we can learn things as a result of our self-consciousness and therefore concludes that we have some sort of strange, magical knowledge wired into our brain from birth. I believe Stefan has said about the same thing, and has also said that humans are "rational" upon brith, not "good". Correct me if I am wrong though.

 

I think you're right, rational self interest sounds more plausible than being born, 'good' or 'bad'. Those terms seems redundant when discussing the motivations of a baby.

[STer]

I think you're right, rational self interest sounds more plausible than being born, 'good' or 'bad'. Those terms seems redundant when discussing the motivations of a baby.

 

"Good" and "evil" are not very scientifically-defined terms at this point. I was asked recently about the word "evil" and I explained:

 

"Regardless of whether you choose to use the word “evil” or not, we can find common ground around the concepts of:

 

Activity that is malicious and…

Activity that is willfully negligent despite an apparent risk of unnecessary harm or suffering"

 

The idea obviously isn't that a baby is capable of these things while still a baby. The idea is simply that some people may be born with brains that are wired/structured with the tendency to either enjoy such behavior or lack the inhibitory mechanisms that others have so that as they get old enough for it, such behavior does emerge and has a biological basis.

 

Again, I think it's misguided to assume there is one "human nature" that all humans share when it comes to this issue. Most humans may be born with brains capable of a certain level of empathy and inhibition of their malicious or willfully negligent impulses, but a certain percentage may not be. Are the latter group still "human"? It might surprise you but some researchers have actually speculated there may be a subspecies difference here. That is obviously controversial, but it tells you how important this division among levels of capacity for empathy is.

[Think Free]

 It might surprise you but some researchers have actually speculated there may be a subspecies difference here. 

 

Yeah, humans and politicians.

 

But seriously, I am not saying you're supporting this, but this "subspecies" talk smacks of eugenics and other tactics of dehumanization that tend to precede human rights violations.

[STer]

Yeah, humans and politicians.

 

But seriously, I am not saying you're supporting this, but this "subspecies" talk smacks of eugenics and other tactics of dehumanization that tend to precede human rights violations.

 

I'm simply telling you the fact of what some researchers in the area think. It's not a political statement. It's a scientific one. The logic is that empathy and conscience are so foundational to the very evolution of our very specific subspecies - to the point that we would not have even survived as a subspecies without it - that not having them represents an evolutionarily significant difference. There is also consideration of the evolutionary path that would lead such traits to perpetuate within the species and the argument is that it may be an alternative evolutionary strategy that has co-evolved with the typical one. The statement is also based on research showing some very significant differences in brain structure and function. So this is a very scientifically-based hypothesis.

 

Robert Hare, who is widely considered the world expert on psychopathy and highly respected, calls psychopaths "an "intraspecies predator." So again, you see the evolutionary level of significance in that term.

 

By the way, Stefan himself, in one of his videos about psychopaths as opposed to other people, used the analogy of two different animals, one predator and one prey. I can't remember which animals he used, but it may have been lion and sheep. Look at the description he put under this video too - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDC0PuUTPFE .

 

He put:

 

"The nature, coloring, stripes and habits of the most dangerous human predator."

 

So again, that notion that these are very different creatures living out a very different life strategy is there.

 

You mention that such considerations are dehumanizing and could lead to human rights violations. But, in fact, it is those who dehumanize others and violate human rights that are being considered here. The question is "Is a person who appears to have biological differences that drive them to dehumanize and violate the rights of others consistently - or even to take pleasure in doing so - fundamentally the same as other people?"

 

Nobody is saying they are a different species. Don't mistake that. The farthest anyone is going that has any credibility is saying it may be a sort of separate evolutionary lineage within the same species. A sub-species difference, not a species difference. Very important not to mistake those.

 

If you understand how subspecies are recognized in biology, it has to do with differences in fundamental traits. The question is which traits are fundamental enough to delineate a separate subspecies within a species. For instance, in some organisms, different colored coats indicate different subspecies, in others not so. So it is a reasonable question to ask what traits, among humans, would indicate a different sub-species. Some researchers believe the presence or absence of empathy/conscience capacity is fundamental enough to delineate that split. This is a serious question for biology. It is not a political statement or any statement about what recognizing such a difference would mean politically. That is not the job of scientists to determine.

 

As for "humans vs. politicians," actually, at least according to Kevin Dutton's list, there are a number of careers that attract psychopaths even more than politics. This shouldn't be totally surprising as many very powerful people actually take pay cuts when they go into politics. And some may actually have more power in certain ways in other fields. People don't like the government here so they tend to look at it as the ultimate seat of power, but there are plenty of people outside of government that have more power than some people within government. They may not have certain particular powers - like the option to initiate violence legally - but they may have other powers that they find more valuable than that one would be to them anyway.

[Think Free]

I'm simply telling you the fact of what some researchers in the area think. It's not a political statement. It's a scientific one. The logic is that empathy and conscience are so foundational to the very evolution of our very specific subspecies - to the point that we would not have even survived as a subspecies without it - that not having them represents an evolutionarily significant difference. There is also consideration of the evolutionary path that would lead such traits to perpetuate within the species and the argument is that it may be an alternative evolutionary strategy that has co-evolved with the typical one. The statement is also based on research showing some very significant differences in brain structure and function. So this is a very scientifically-based hypothesis.

 

Robert Hare, who is widely considered the world expert on psychopathy and highly respected, calls psychopaths "an "intraspecies predator." So again, you see the evolutionary level of significance in that term.

 

By the way, Stefan himself, in one of his videos about psychopaths as opposed to other people, used the analogy of two different animals, one predator and one prey. I can't remember which animals he used, but it may have been lion and sheep. Look at the description he put under this video too - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDC0PuUTPFE .

 

He put:

 

"The nature, coloring, stripes and habits of the most dangerous human predator."

 

So again, that notion that these are very different creatures living out a very different life strategy is there.

 

You mention that such considerations are dehumanizing and could lead to human rights violations. But, in fact, it is those who dehumanize others and violate human rights that are being considered here. The question is "Is a person who appears to have biological differences that drive them to dehumanize and violate the rights of others consistently - or even to take pleasure in doing so - fundamentally the same as other people?"

 

Nobody is saying they are a different species. Don't mistake that. The farthest anyone is going that has any credibility is saying it may be a sort of separate evolutionary lineage within the same species. A sub-species difference, not a species difference. Very important not to mistake those.

 

If you understand how subspecies are recognized in biology, it has to do with differences in fundamental traits. The question is which traits are fundamental enough to delineate a separate subspecies within a species. For instance, in some organisms, different colored coats indicate different subspecies, in others not so. So it is a reasonable question to ask what traits, among humans, would indicate a different sub-species. Some researchers believe the presence or absence of empathy/conscience capacity is fundamental enough to delineate that split. This is a serious question for biology. It is not a political statement or any statement about what recognizing such a difference would mean politically. That is not the job of scientists to determine.

 

As for "humans vs. politicians," actually, at least according to Kevin Dutton's list, there are a number of careers that attract psychopaths even more than politics. This shouldn't be totally surprising as many very powerful people actually take pay cuts when they go into politics. And some may actually have more power in certain ways in other fields. People don't like the government here so they tend to look at it as the ultimate seat of power, but there are plenty of people outside of government that have more power than some people within government. They may not have certain particular powers - like the option to initiate violence legally - but they may have other powers that they find more valuable than that one would be to them anyway.

 

Just research eugenics.

[STer]

Just research eugenics.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics?s=t

 

"the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics)  or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)"

 

Did you see a single word in any of what I said about encouraging or discouraging reproduction? You don't seem to know the difference between a basic scientific observation of an existing difference vs. a political plan for doing something on the basis of that. I would guess you're not actually into science as a methodology judging by that response.

 

Also, I pointed out examples where Stefan talks about these conditions in similar ways - calling psychopaths "the most dangerous human predator" and comparing them to lions and the rest of us as their prey. Does that mean he is also promoting eugenics?

 

Again, I must point out the irony that it is, in fact, the type of people that have promoted eugenics that are being identified here as predators - not called out to become prey. You seem to have the entire issue reversed.

[Libertarian guy]

@STer I think politician is a job that, attracts even more pychopaths than that list of other jobs. Politicians even accept less payment in order to control the life's of others. That means their desire to rule other people is very big.

[STer]

@STer I think politician is a job that, attracts even more pychopaths than that list of other jobs. Politicians even accept less payment in order to control the life's of others. That means their desire to rule other people is very big.

 

Well you may think that. But you're just speculating. Dutton's researched this stuff for much of his career. I don't know exactly what his methodology was on that particular list, so perhaps he doesn't have it perfectly correct, but at least he sought out data. As far as I know you haven't done so much as a second of actual research on the subject.

 

Perhaps your argument could make sense to explain it if we found that politicians are often more severe psychopaths. But there simply aren't nearly enough political jobs for most psychopaths to become politicians. Every politician represents hundreds or thousands of people. So just by sheer numbers alone I don't see how your argument could be correct.

[Think Free]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics?s=t "the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics)  or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)" Did you see a single word in any of what I said about encouraging or discouraging reproduction? You don't seem to know the difference between a basic scientific observation of an existing difference vs. a political plan for doing something on the basis of that. I would guess you're not actually into science as a methodology judging by that response. Also, I pointed out examples where Stefan talks about these conditions in similar ways - calling psychopaths "the most dangerous human predator" and comparing them to lions and the rest of us as their prey. Does that mean he is also promoting eugenics?

 First off, let me be clear that I am not saying you or anyone else is promoting eugenics. I am saying that the disaster of eugenics was based on the same kind of flawed thinking.I see that I shouldn't have asked you to research eugenics. Here's what you need to know: Claims of a "basic scientific observation of an existing difference" have come around before and the "scientific consensus" around this "scientific observation" was known as "eugenics." This "science" ultimately led to the holocaust, and when the world saw the horror of it, they quietly swept the "science" of eugenics under the rug of history. The "fact" of what some "researchers think" is not science in any desirable sense of the word. It is, however, "science" in the sense that eugenics was. The only morally valid way to make inferences about a person's morality or human nature is to base it on his or her own individual free actions and statements about him or herself.

 

Again, I must point out the irony that it is, in fact, the type of people that have promoted eugenics that are being identified here as predators - not called out to become prey. You seem to have the entire issue reversed.

 

On the contrary, I think you are the one missing the irony here. You write, "But, in fact, it is those who dehumanize others and violate human rights that are being considered here." You're just looking for, in your own words "biological differences that drive them to" be "psychopaths," a.k.a. "the embodiment of materialism, the epitome of sensuality, of greed, of dishonesty, of selfishness, of heartlessness, and the lust for power." Well, if it's those people that we're talking about, I guess it's okay to characterize them as a subspecies of predators.

[STer]

 First off, let me be clear that I am not saying you or anyone else is promoting eugenics. I am saying that the disaster of eugenics was based on the same kind of flawed thinking.I see that I shouldn't have asked you to research eugenics. Here's what you need to know: Claims of a "basic scientific observation of an existing difference" have come around before and the "scientific consensus" around this "scientific observation" was known as "eugenics." This "science" ultimately led to the holocaust, and when the world saw the horror of it, they quietly swept the "science" of eugenics under the rug of history. The "fact" of what some "researchers think" is not science in any desirable sense of the word. It is, however, "science" in the sense that eugenics was. The only morally valid way to make inferences about a person's morality or human nature is to base it on his or her own individual free actions and statements about him or herself.

 

 

On the contrary, I think you are the one missing the irony here. You write, "But, in fact, it is those who dehumanize others and violate human rights that are being considered here." You're just looking for, in your own words "biological differences that drive them to" be "psychopaths," a.k.a. "the embodiment of materialism, the epitome of sensuality, of greed, of dishonesty, of selfishness, of heartlessness, and the lust for power." Well, if it's those people that we're talking about, I guess it's okay to characterize them as a subspecies of predators.

 

When you say "the same kind of flawed thinking" what exactly is the flaw you are identifying? By flaw, do you mean something scientifically invalid or just something you don't like? If you are speaking scientifically, then my question for you is do you believe that humans are immune to having subspecies (by the way I hope you understand sub here doesn't mean below or underneath. If there are subspecies, then every human would be in one of the subspecies. It isn't like some are full humans not in a subspecies and others are subspecies. Subspecies in biology just means a division of a species. All the subspecies are at the same level of categorization.)?

 

So again, given that understanding, are you saying Homo Sapiens cannot have subspecies? There can be only one subspecies that all Homo Sapiens fall into. If you say our species, unlike any other I'm aware of, cannot have subspecies, then I'm not sure what you base that on.

 

If you agree that Homo Sapiens could feasibly contain subspecies, then the question is which traits are fundamental enough to constitute a true division within the species. I think it's been well-established that many superficial things that people (ie: non-scientists) have attempted to create subspecies around in the past do not even come close to meriting such a division. But this one - significant differences in brain structure and function that affects empathy and conscience and, very importantly, are actually likely not a defect, but a feature for that person that enhances their particular life strategy (usually a parasitic one, also a significant difference from others) - merits a closer look and has gotten a close look from some.

 

I am looking at this from the standpoint of biologists and how they classify organisms, nothing more, nothing less. And this is a hypothesis that I think has enough potential merit to be worthy of discussion The fact that horrible people have, in the past, tried to use somewhat-related pseudoscience to justify terrible acts is not really relevant to the science itself.

 

So if we're going to discuss this topic, we're going to have to agree to talk about it as a scientific topic. It isn't a political topic. If terrible people take some scientific findings and twist them to justify their acts, that is a misuse of science. But scientists themselves cannot control that. Their job is simply finding the truth. (And another caveat is that by scientist, I mean someone practicing the scientific method, not just anybody who has a label calling them a scientist).

 

So if you'd like to talk about this from the standpoint of how a biologist would look at it, the relevant questions are:

 

1) Is it feasible at all, in a general sense, that Homo Sapiens might actually contain more than one subspecies, all being at the same hierarchical level of categorization (just as is found in many other species)?

 

2) If you believe the answer to #1 is no, then why?

 

3) If you believe the answer to #1 is yes, which human traits are fundamental enough that they could merit such a division?

 

4) Would significant brain structure/functional differences regarding conscience/empathy, which drive a significantly different parasitic life strategy be fundamental enough to merit a different category?

 

If you can't stick to the science and keep going into politics and how people have misused such ideas in the past, we can't really talk about it. It is not the job of a scientist to maneuver their pursuit of the facts based on how terrible people may twist them. I fully and completely oppose the types of ideas you referenced. And what I am talking about here cannot be treated as the same. It is not.

 

Some of the same types of people you're talking about also put forth pseudoscience about genetics to justify their acts. I hardly think we want to shut down discoveries in genetics just because some terrible people can twist the findings and lie about what they really say. The scientific pursuit of truth needs to be separated from the whims of people who may lie about the science later, since that can't really even be predicted anyway.

[Think Free]

So if you'd like to talk about this from the standpoint of how a biologist would look at it, the relevant questions are:

 

1) Is it feasible at all, in a general sense, that Homo Sapiens might actually contain more than one subspecies, all being at the same hierarchical level of categorization (just as is found in many other species)?

 

2) If you believe the answer to #1 is no, then why?

 

3) If you believe the answer to #1 is yes, which human traits are fundamental enough that they could merit such a division?

 

4) Would significant brain structure/functional differences regarding conscience/empathy, which drive a significantly different parasitic life strategy be fundamental enough to merit a different category?

 

The problem with this line of questions is demonstrated in question 3. Question 3 is not a scientific question; it's a methodological question. And, as far as I am aware, it's not a question relevant to subspecies classification. Subspecies are usually populations that would interbreed if they were not geographically isolated from each other. It is not a question of "fundamental differences." Furthermore, classification of species and higher taxa are often controversial, let alone subspecies classification. In any case, the idea of a subspecies that is born from and gives birth to another subspecies seems pretty clearly ridiculous.

 

So you're trying to position this as a scientific question, but it's really just a word game, which is mostly just of social, economic, and political significance. But that's not my point. My point is that it's not good science and it's bad philosophy.

 

Can you give me a scientific answer to the question, "Why does it matter if psychopaths are a subspecies?"

[STer]

The problem with this line of questions is demonstrated in question 3. Question 3 is not a scientific question; it's a methodological question. And, as far as I am aware, it's not a question relevant to subspecies classification. Subspecies are usually populations that would interbreed if they were not geographically isolated from each other. It is not a question of "fundamental differences." Furthermore, classification of species and higher taxa are often controversial, let alone subspecies classification. In any case, the idea of a subspecies that is born from and gives birth to another subspecies seems pretty clearly ridiculous.

 

So you're trying to position this as a scientific question, but it's really just a word game, which is mostly just of social, economic, and political significance. But that's not my point. My point is that it's not good science and it's bad philosophy.

 

Can you give me a scientific answer to the question, "Why does it matter if psychopaths are a subspecies?"

 

I don't understand how question 3 is not a scientific question. Scientists - mainly biologists - must decide what is a proper basis on which to divide species. They must identify certain traits as definitive for a subspecies and others not so. That's the very heart of proper biological categorization. So how is that not scientific? Are you saying subspecies are only defined geographically?

 

And you are saying that the subspecies must only give birth to others of that same subspecies, never that one of a given subspecies gives birth to one of the other? But you also just said that the subspecies must be able to interbreed with each other (since they're of the same species, they would). So how could it be a one-to-one thing with subspecies if they can interbreed? Clearly there will be mixings of them no?

 

These are certainly scientific questions in that the proper person to ask them to is a scientist, especially a biologist. They are questions about biological categorization. Do you know the answers to them?

 

"Can you give me a scientific answer to the question, "Why does it matter if psychopaths are a subspecies?"

 

Now THAT is where I don't really understand the meaning of "a scientific answer." What would be a scientific answer to that as opposed to a non-scientific one?

[Think Free]

I don't understand how question 3 is not a scientific question. Scientists - mainly biologists - must decide what is a proper basis on which to divide species. They must identify certain traits as definitive for a subspecies and others not so. That's the very heart of proper biological categorization. So how is that not scientific? Are you saying subspecies are only defined geographically?

 

Subspecies are defined by separate breeding populations that would interbreed if allowed to, destroying their genetic distinction. Usually this separation in breeding populations is enforce by geography. The only other factor I can think of that would enforce such a separation is direct human control of breeding. (Like how humans don't let purebred dogs just freely interbreed with other dogs.)

 

 

And you are saying that the subspecies must only give birth to others of that same subspecies, never that one of a given subspecies gives birth to one of the other? But you also just said that the subspecies must be able to interbreed with each other (since they're of the same species, they would). So how could it be a one-to-one thing with subspecies if they can interbreed? Clearly there will be mixings of them no?

 

Yes. A new member of a subspecies results only when two members of that subspecies breed with each other. When mixing of two different subspecies occurs, the result is not a member of either subspecies, since subspecies is defined by the two different populations being able to interbreed but being externally restricted from doing so. If mixing of subspecies were natural and common (as would have to be the case for psychopaths and other humans) then neither would be considered a subspecies.

 

Here's an example, to help you understand. Many different subspecies of tiger exist. The subspecies are defined by naturally occurring wild populations that breed within their population but not with other tigers because geography prevents them from doing so. When different subspecies are brought together by humans they breed with each other and produce offspring that are not members of any subspecies because there's no naturally occurring isolated population that they are a part of.

 

Does that make sense?

 

 

These are certainly scientific questions in that the proper person to ask them to is a scientist, especially a biologist. They are questions about biological categorization. Do you know the answers to them?

 

Scientific questions are questions about objective reality. "Fundamentalness" of physical traits is not an objective feature of reality. Taxonomy is a relatively controversial "science," but at least most of the taxonomic ranks are short for objective claims. Like, as I've explained, "subspecies" is normally short for "would interbreed and produce fertile offspring but don't because of external factors preventing them from interbreeding." "Species" is short for, "do not normally interbreed, even when together." Etc. Can you give one example of subspecies categorization that is based only on "fundamentalness" of their traits? Can you give an example of two subspecies that live and breed together, but only give birth to members of either subspecies?

 

 

"Can you give me a scientific answer to the question, "Why does it matter if psychopaths are a subspecies?"

 

Now THAT is where I don't really understand the meaning of "a scientific answer." What would be a scientific answer to that as opposed to a non-scientific one?

 

A scientific answer would say, "Having discovered (not defined) psychopaths to be a separate subspecies, we can now infer the following objective physical claims about them that are universal to the category of subspecies." But, of course, the question of fundamentalness is a question of definition, not an objective fact to be discovered.

 

Let me put it another way, what would categorizing psychopaths as a subspecies tell us about psychopaths that we didn't already know about them? Nothing, of course, because we'd have to define the concept of human subspecies in a non-objective manner (based on "fundamentalness") in such a way that psychopathy made it in.

[STer]

Thank you for a very reasoned and intelligent response.

 

I'm not a biologist so I fully admit I may be misusing the specific technical term "subspecies." I've read people using that term in reference to this topic. But the term is also sometimes used by laymen in a less than technical way so the line gets blurred.

 

And it's important to note that I wasn't saying that some of those without empathy/conscience are definitely a separate subspecies. I was only saying that the difference is serious enough that some have considered that. So:

 

1) Perhaps subspecies isn't the right term, but there is a fundamental division, based on their different brain structure/function and life strategy that deserves a different name

2) Even if ultimately the distinction doesn't meet the threshhold for a division of that sort, my point is that it's close enough to merit consideration.

 

The important message is that, in practice, people like this are very different than other people in more than surface ways. And that needs to be accounted for if you want to have a healthy society and protect yourself and those you care about. And it means that when people talk about one single "human nature," as discussed in this thread, I question the wisdom of that. If there are at least two almost contradicting life strategies being played out by different people based on significant differences in brain structure/function, it's possible their "nature" is not the same. So maybe we have to admit there are at least two different fundamental human natures.

 

Yes we are talking about taxonomy here. To me, taxonomy is a scientific topic. All sciences use classification schemes and the people best equipped to devise them are those trained in those fields because they understand which traits merit being defined as fundamental. It's not completely objective, in that it requires definition, but some definitions make far more meaningful sense than others. To a layman, something on the surface may appear worthy of being fundamental to taxonomy because they don't understand how the system as a whole works. But a biologist will realize that that is actually just a distraction or even an expression of some deeper difference (like something specific in the genes).

 

So the point is that whether through actual biological categorizing or just by being aware, understanding that psychopaths have a fundamentally different value system and life strategy stops people from making foolish assessments of situations. This understanding is crucial to accurately diagnosing what is going on in the world, in our communities and in our families. And it sheds light on how questionable the notion of a single "human nature" might be. It shows us that when we are dealing with other people, if we are going to think in terms of "human nature" at all, we sometimes have to ask about someone with whom we are interacting "Which human nature does this person have? The one I have? Or a different one?"

 

P.S. Think Free - With a little research I turned up this term "ecotype". Perhaps this is closer to what I'm talking about. The page says that "some scientists consider them "taxonomically equivalent to subspecies". This is true in the sense that ecotypes can be sometimes classified as subspecies and the opposite." But it seems to be more about groups within a species that are adapted to different environmental conditions. This is really what I'm getting at.

 

Psychopaths and those with related disorders live right alongside everyone else. But they are adapted to different conditions and have very different life strategies than the rest. And these groups may well have co-evolved as they both reinforce and conflict with each other in different ways.