Why Do People Behave the Way They Do?

[LastKnight1881]

Here are some thoughts on why people behave the way they do. I was wondering if it made any sense to anyone else. Much of it will sound very familiar to regular listeners of Stefan. 

Personality Traits
Personality traits are evolved survival and reproductive strategies and are estimated to be 80% inherited. For the purpose of understanding why people behave the way they do, I'm considering two dimensions to personality. First, all people are either a Maker or Taker. This describes the methods individuals use to get what they want. The second dimension of personality traits describe the methods individuals use to draw conclusions about their world and how they should act.
Maker vs Taker
There are two ways to get the things people want. Either as a Maker or a Taker. A taker will use aggression, such as lying, cheating, stealing, manipulating, bullying, violence and murder. A Maker will create value and exchange that value for he wants. A Maker will use means that comply with the Non-aggression principle. A taker will use any means he believes he can get away with. I suspect that in present US it is about an even split between Makers and Takers. While it is likely that as intelligence increases an individual will tend toward Maker. However, Individuals of all intelligence ranges can be found in all personality trait categories.
Predators
Predators use aggression to get what they want. But, this causes a problem for them. Other people do not like being their victims. So, Predators create stories like Communism or postmodernism to hide what they’re doing. The Predator does not care if the stories are true, they only care if it is an effective tool to manipulate others. The debate is only a tool to make you think the Predator is reasonable. While you debate with a Predator he will be slipping a knife into your back. You would not sit down with a serial rapist and explain to them why it is wrong to rape. A serial rapist will not stop raping his victims until he is forced to stop. The Political Predator will not stop raping his victims until he is forced to stop. Force is the only means of effectively dealing with a Predator. It is likely there is very few of these types of people. This is a high return high risk strategy.
Followers
Most people evolved as followers because it is the safest reproduction strategy. If an individual goes against his family or society, he may be outcast. This effectively results in gene death. Due to this, most people will believe what they perceive the authority, their family or society in general believes. If most people believe murder is wrong, then they will behave as if opposing murder is the morally right thing. If most people believe gassing Jews is right, then they will behave as if gassing Jews is the morally right thing. You cannot argue facts and evidence with Followers because it is too dangerous to have any thoughts that risk banishment from their group. It is important to realize the Follower usually doesn’t actually care if what the society believes is true, he only cares if others in his group see him acting in accordance with his group. To change the behavior of a Follower, he must perceive the zeitgeist is changing.
Fanatics
The fanatic is an uncommon and extreme version of the Follower. You’ve seen these people on YouTube, dressed in black, beating their adversaries and rioting. Sometimes even causing harm to themselves. Unlike the Follower, the Fanatic really believes. Our modern Fanatic has been indoctrinated into believing their opponents represent an extreme threat to themselves and their entire group. Fanatics can be intelligent or dumb but are always dangerous and cannot be reasoned with. Like with the Predator the only way to deal with them is with force.
Rationalists
Rationalists evolved from ancestors that had to use understanding of and compliance with the natural world to survive. They were individualist because they had to primarily survive on their own and not rely on their group. Rationalist only make up a small portion of the modern US population and tend toward being Makers. To win a Rationalist to your side you must use reason, logic and evidence.

I subscribe to Freedomainradio because I hope Stefan is able to persuade more Rationalists, who in turn will make it appear to the Followers that the Makers are growing in number. I also support Vox Day for similar reasons.

[barn]

Hi @LastKnight1881

Interesting.

What do you think... Can I belong to a group which is composed of (?) individuals, 'individualists', where each person is free to choose whatever 'aspects' they choose (reasonable limitations tho, can't choose outside of what's available in the objective reality) ?

Is that a discrete group? (the word is about: separate, distinct, non-continuous)

As in: A couple months ago I read about Russell's paradox. That's why I'm asking.

 

- - - 26.09.2018 - - -

Howdy 'doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit, no substance),

Here, let me put forth an equally strong counter-argument... (presses 'F')...' Donesky ' !

[RichardY]

Hypocrisy.

[RichardY]

Disagree with The Takers & Makers. The Taker part is ok, just the maker part I think is wrong. 

1) Philosophical Dualism.
2) In order make you must first take.
3) If you carry on making, resources are finite, so something has to be destroyed. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed."
4) I think it's projection. Neither good nor bad in itself, but sees the world other than it is.

[barn]

39 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Hypocrisy.

Well, not what I would call constructive from you@RichardY

Hahaha... you know, before it was two words, now one... are you going 'cryptic' by the day in some chosen threads?

But jokes aside... I can't mind read. Sorry. (if you hoped)

It looks as if you're assuming I or others might.

Care to make an actual argument instead?

And please, try to make it more than 2 words if you don't mind. No obligation, a preference I still have (funny, I seem to be repeating this to you) ... would be reasonable, right?

proof - of your two word crypt...

me calling a specific content of yours out earlier (funny, it's in the same thread you quoted...)

[LastKnight1881]

I do think I need more accurate labels.

How does dualism apply to this?

When referring to Taker I'm talking about taking by means that do not comply with the non-aggression principle. I make value every day but I do not take in that sense. What would be a better label for Maker and Taker?

[RichardY]

On 9/27/2018 at 12:14 AM, LastKnight1881 said:

I do think I need more accurate labels.

How does dualism apply to this?

When referring to Taker I'm talking about taking by means that do not comply with the non-aggression principle. I make value every day but I do not take in that sense. What would be a better label for Maker and Taker?

The original formulation that Stefan thought was wrong or less precise was "The Have's and Have Not's". Kind of a common middle class English expression. Another one, perhaps less common, "there are two people in this world, the quick and the dead." 

I think you can kind of get stuck in a kind of rationalism. For example, Evil people can't not be good, because, well they're Evil. And Good people can not be Evil, because, well they're good. Just swap about Maker's and Taker's accordingly.

With the Have's and have not's I think you have more a kind of monism. Evil being a deprivation of Good, instead of being entirely separate, perhaps more like Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle. Instead of a more Kantian approach, based on an apriori freewill.

As I said I think Taker's is Appropriate, not sure on the Maker's part. A Christian would say God. Bit of a gamer so kind of reminds me of a part of the intro to the game Bioshock.

"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? "No," says the man in Washington, "it belongs to the poor." "No," says the man in the Vatican, "it belongs to God." "No," says the man in Moscow, "it belongs to everyone." I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture. A city where the artist would not fear the censor; where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality; where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well."

[RichardY]

Instead of Maker. Not really sure, perhaps more on the line of order and chaos. I think some people, usually high in conscientiousness have to work and produce otherwise they get upset. I think Maker can blindside someone, while making them extremely sharp in character. Reminds me a bit of the film "Instinct" with Anthony Hopkins. They used the expression Taker in the film a lot, but the answer was more a balance, a kind of Aristotlean mean or perhaps Buddhist approach in a way. Aristotle does say in Nichomacean Ethics that a Mean man is often worse than a prodigal one. I'd imagine there are plenty of ways to be mean in business, a kind of take no prisoners approach.