I made several claims.

 I made several claims.
a) The condition of experiments (authority structure) and our cultural hierarchical training from the age of 5 in standard schooling explains much.
[it’s possible unschooled and homeschooled would not behave the same way for example]
b) (similar to a) the social tendency of people to trust that scientists will not be asking them to cause pain – that the men in white coats are lying can explain those results better than “human nature”. It is our social tendency because of our culture. Another culture might not trust scientists.
c) Even IF we are [some high percentage] primarily predisposed to act out in a genetic/environment/habitual manner with choice being minimal and choices that can break past habitual/environment/genetic even less so: these are the choices (pseudo or not) of INDIVIDUALS with unique histories despite all of the commonalities.
So if brutality is a genetic expression in person 293 and not a genetic expression in person 392, what gain is there to say “brutality is human nature” as it implies it is a collectively shared trait found in all.
Arguably, anything that any human being is ever capable of in any fashion could be considered human nature.
  • Like
  • ==
  • -=–


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

six + = 12

Leave a Reply