Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 62 of 62

Thread: Gender differences in sexual attraction: An illustration of the complex nature -nurtue interaction

  1. Top | #61
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,419
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,395
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post

    You're flat out wrong here, and honestly I'm genuinely surprised that you're even attempting to make this claim, and not admitting that it's misguided.

    Carrying out common courtesies are not a sacrifice in any way, because by not carrying out common courtesies you stand to lose more than you would by just granting the courtesy, which is the point skepticalbip was making. If you can't concede on this point I just give up.
    I already gave up, deciding that it wasn't worth the effort. Jokodo for some weird reason seems to honestly believe that the cost in personal well being (all that wasted energy and effort) of a simple courtesy like handing a workmate a cup would outweigh the personal well being boost of a cordial working relationship. Being courteous, even with strangers, strengthens social bonds. People have a tendency (human nature) to enjoy a bit of schadenfreude when they see uncaring ass holes in serious need of help but will generally jump in to help when that person is known to be friendly and congenial rather than an uncaring ass. A little courtesy will keep a person out of the ass hole category in the eyes of others. Congeniality in human society is a damn good survival strategy.
    It is, but mostly because others will punish those who don't conform to the expectation of helping others even at a cost to themselves.

    This is miles apart from your claim that "Humans can, and do, have altruistic ideals of how cultures should be to attain whatever lofty goals they can imagine but it really boils down to how they think others should live."
    That is because it is a very different part of my post than the part that you criticized and I responded to. You had criticized my, "Certainly humans will help others but not (or extremely rarely) at the cost of their own well being." CAn I assume then that you now agree that common courtesy increases one's well being at no real cost?

    Now to to address again the highlighted quote in your post. It was already explained in my original post but you cut off the explanation. Certainly people hold altruistic ideals but like those ranting that the homeless need to be housed, the hungry fed, etc., it is very rarely that those advocating it be done will actually dig into their own pockets to do it... They want to encourage others to do it. Again back to Bernie's rants that some being millionaires while others are need is unfair and should be corrected, apparently never considered sharing his wealth. Humans can have altruistic ideals and yet still refuse to share their wealth because they are protecting their own personal well being.

  2. Top | #62
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    2,947
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,236
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    It is, but mostly because others will punish those who don't conform to the expectation of helping others even at a cost to themselves.

    This is miles apart from your claim that "Humans can, and do, have altruistic ideals of how cultures should be to attain whatever lofty goals they can imagine but it really boils down to how they think others should live."
    That is because it is a very different part of my post than the part that you criticized and I responded to. You had criticized my, "Certainly humans will help others but not (or extremely rarely) at the cost of their own well being." CAn I assume then that you now agree that common courtesy increases one's well being at no real cost?
    It does so because we live in the context of other humans who, far from having only altruistic ideals without ever acting on them, will actually go out of their way to shun you even at a cost to themselves if you don't show a minimum amount of altruistic behaviour.

    In any other context, it'd be a net cost.

    Now to to address again the highlighted quote in your post. It was already explained in my original post but you cut off the explanation. Certainly people hold altruistic ideals but like those ranting that the homeless need to be housed, the hungry fed, etc., it is very rarely that those advocating it be done will actually dig into their own pockets to do it... They want to encourage others to do it. Again back to Bernie's rants that some being millionaires while others are need is unfair and should be corrected, apparently never considered sharing his wealth. Humans can have altruistic ideals and yet still refuse to share their wealth because they are protecting their own personal well being.
    Can we please not turn this into a political discussion? There's a reason I'm sticking with the science section for now, and it's not I want to read your rants your political opponents.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •