The man academy

[180]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

hohoho! We finally agree with something. I agree that it isn't a either or situation. To be honest, I tend to stress the environment over the individual.

Are we just talking about war here? I know in WWII (or WW1), officers would shoot you in the head if you refused to get off the boat, and unsurprisingly, most people did get off the boat.

If we are just talking about social behaviour in general though, I cannot think of many situations where you are literally up against the wall. If the citizens of Nazi Germany really were in such a position, I doubt any of them would have agreed to habour Jews. I think human perception has a influence on how people will behave. If you really think that you have no choice but to go along with the Nazis, if you cannot imagine successful subversion, if you are not brave enough to act on your imagination, then perhaps you wouldn't deviate from expectations.

There are always people who deviate from the most ****ed up situations. I don't know if this really happened (it sounds too ****ed up to be true) but supposedly a group of prisoners (soldiers) were given the choice to either be shot in the head or to walk through a dark passage where their fate was unknown. They could live. They might die. A lot of people chose to be shot in the head rather than face the unknown. Most of my classmates concentrate on the human fear of the unknown. Not as many of us focussed on the people who actually walked through the dark passage and lived. And oddly enough, that was the point that my prof was trying to highlight for us.

I liked supertom's point. Most people who bring up these events and experiments (in my experience) do so in order to point out how cruel and selfish human beings 'really are'. Why not look at the people who deviated from the norm, high light the resiliency factors that contributed to their behaviour, and then create policies for 'at risk' people? This was and is the whole motivation for resiliency research in soc-psychology, actually. Too many profs are fed up of researching the 'dark side' of humanity. They want to research the positive side and work towards a better world.

We both agree on this but I think our focus is deviated like a septum (Medical joke) I'm not a humanist, and I certainly don't believe the focus should be on whether or not humans are good or capable. The humanist view often fails to explain most human behavior, while I'm sure most would prefer that we focus on the wonderful aspects of human nature, it tends to be lopsided and too optimistic and subjective. Optimism suffers it's defect like any other view, as it becomes to "lens like". While I do harbor a perspective that is often coloring things in my own view, humanism is like the bright yellow that obscures movement. I don't see things as "optimistic or pessimistic" as those are only value judgements. However, humanists argue that focusing on the bright aspects of the human condition will lead to better and healthier lives but I find no evidence to support that.

It's like self help books the profess be happy and positive and all your dreams will come true, but nothing ever materializes. I've walked that road for 4 years and empirically it hasn't been working for everyone.

While on the opposite side, if I had a gun and talked to 200 people today and said "strip or I'll shoot you" I'm pretty damn sure that most people will take of their clothes. But if I said "Donate $50 dollars and you can save 3 kids from dying in Africa" I'll get mixed results depending where I live. The "kind" side of humanity has too many variables while threats and imminent death almost always has consistent results.

This is how Mao Zhe Dong managed his cultural revolution and the prosecution of intellectuals and public floggings. Anyone made to look like a "non communist participant" was almost certainly beaten and outcasted. The surge of torture and backstabbing (even family on family) shows the extent of how the human need to survive can trump all other values.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by 180

We both agree on this but I think our focus is deviated like a septum (Medical joke) I'm not a humanist, and I certainly don't believe the focus should be on whether or not humans are good or capable. The humanist view often fails to explain most human behavior, while I'm sure most would prefer that we focus on the wonderful aspects of human nature, it tends to be lopsided and too optimistic and subjective. Optimism suffers it's defect like any other view, as it becomes to "lens like". While I do harbor a perspective that is often coloring things in my own view, humanism is like the bright yellow that obscures movement. I don't see things as "optimistic or pessimistic" as those are only value judgements. However, humanists argue that focusing on the bright aspects of the human condition will lead to better and healthier lives but I find no evidence to support that.

No, that's not what humanism is. It's about what improves humanity, not about only focusing on the positive aspects of humanity. It started with Renaissance humanism, which was, in a very very tiny nutshell, based on the idea that the study of the humanities can make us better people. I'm pretty sure this is why we have "liberal arts education" today, actually. They were obsessed with classical literature and philosophy and believed that the ancients had access to wisdom that would improve our lives. They also believed that science (natural philosophy) held clues to human nature because there was correspondence (sometimes magical correspondence, see Agrippa) between the microcosm and the macrocosm. Their humanism was inseparable from their Christian faith (and orthodox Christianity stated that humans were sinners).

Modern secular humanism began to emerge with the declining legitimacy of the church/Protestant reformation. Of course, they were all too busy fighting wars in the 17th century to do much with it and "secular humanism" did not fully emerge until the 19th century, but you see first the Deist movement, coupled with the "Age of Reason," and later the positivist movement (which is about the supremacy of the scientific method in creating a well-functioning society, not optimism). Again, it's about what improves humanity, not about turning a blind eye to the horrors. Quite the contrary; Auguste Comte was a sociologist.

[vanderjohn]

Honestly, as a person with a penis, I find myself unable call myself a feminist. But more power to whoever else is a happy feminist, as their beliefs are not mine.

It's kind of ridiculous to compare ourselves to other people's beliefs, which are derived from their perception of reality and not our own. As long as we're happy with our own perception of reality, that's all that counts. Mooch as much wisdom and advice from wherever as possible, and radiate happiness.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by 180

I'll get mixed results depending where I live. The "kind" side of humanity has too many variables while threats and imminent death almost always has consistent results.

That makes sense in scenarios where imminent death or threats to your personal safety is a possibility. I'll think about it some more. I don't think the kindess of human beings is as inconsistent as you think though. But again, I'll think about it.

Originally Posted by 180

We both agree on this but I think our focus is deviated like a septum (Medical joke) I'm not a humanist, and I certainly don't believe the focus should be on whether or not humans are good or capable. The humanist view often fails to explain most human behavior, while I'm sure most would prefer that we focus on the wonderful aspects of human nature, it tends to be lopsided and too optimistic and subjective. Optimism suffers it's defect like any other view, as it becomes to "lens like". While I do harbor a perspective that is often coloring things in my own view, humanism is like the bright yellow that obscures movement. I don't see things as "optimistic or pessimistic" as those are only value judgements. However, humanists argue that focusing on the bright aspects of the human condition will lead to better and healthier lives but I find no evidence to support that.

I've always idenitfied as a humanist, but now that I think about it, I suppose I also identify as an optimist. In saying that, I don't over look all the ****ed up things people do nor do I over look my own ****ed up behaviour. I think the closest way I can describe optimism is a 'belief' in the possibility that human beings can be better. It is a deliberately irrational perspective that motivates me to keep trying to connect with people and to keep working towards a better world. I find pessimists unwittingly limit their choices in life. They say stuff like, 'Oh! These people are just stupid and base. I don't want to hang out with them, but I am so damn lonely!'. They never consider the possibility that they are wrong. They just stop trying to connect with people. As for objectivity, I don't think human beings are capable of it, to be honest. Sometimes I don't think it is preferable even. Marx had some interesting things to say about objectivity.

To be clear though, I don't think the environment can be separated from the individual. I am just as much my environment as I am my psyche. In working towards a better world and identifying resiliency factors in individual people who deviate from the norm, my main goal is to change the environment via social policy. Social policy can nurture positive traits in people (at least, that is what I am hoping).

[180]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

No, that's not what humanism is. It's about what improves humanity, not about only focusing on the positive aspects of humanity. It started with Renaissance humanism, which was, in a very very tiny nutshell, based on the ideal that the study of the humanities can make us better people. I'm pretty sure this is why we have "liberal arts education" today, actually. They were obsessed with classical literature and philosophy and believed that the ancients had access to wisdom that would improve our lives. They also believed that science (natural philosophy) held clues to human nature because there was correspondence (sometimes magical correspondence, see Agrippa) between the microcosm and the macrocosm. Their humanism was inseparable from their Christian faith (and orthodox Christianity stated that humans were sinners).

Modern secular humanism began to emerge with the declining legitimacy of the church/Protestant reformation. Of course, they were all too busy fighting wars in the 17th century to do much with it and "secular humanism" did not fully emerge until the 19th century, but you see first the Deist movement, coupled with the "Age of Reason," and later the positivist movement (which is about the supremacy of the scientific method in creating a well-functioning society, not optimism). Again, it's about what improves humanity, not about turning a blind eye to the horrors. Quite the contrary; Auguste Comte was a sociologist.

I mean Humanistic in regards to psychology (IE. Maslow or Carl Rogers) as opposed to behaviorists, dispositional, neoanlytic or psychoantalyic.

But that's my fault as I shorten Humanistic to "humanism" as it's more commonly referred to in Liberal arts circles.

[180]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

That makes sense in scenarios where imminent death or threats to your personal safety is a possibility. I'll think about it some more. I don't think the kindess of human beings is as inconsistent as you think though. But again, I'll think about it.



I've always idenitfied as a humanist, but now that I think about it, I suppose I also identify as an optimist. In saying that, I don't over look all the ****ed up things people do nor do I over look my own ****ed up behaviour. I think the closest way I can describe optimism is a 'belief' in the possibility that human beings can be better. It is a deliberately irrational perspective that motivates me to keep trying to connect with people and to keep working towards a better world. I find pessimists unwittingly limit their choices in life. They say stuff like, 'Oh! These people are just stupid and base. I don't want to hang out with them, but I am so damn lonely!'. They never consider the possibility that they are wrong. They just stop trying to connect with people. As for objectivity, I don't think human beings are capable of it, to be honest. Sometimes I don't think it is preferable even. Marx had some interesting things to say about objectivity.

To be clear though, I don't think the environment can be separated from the individual. I am just as much my environment as I am my psyche. In working towards a better world and identifying resiliency factors in individual people who deviate from the norm, my main goal is to change the environment via social policy. Social policy can nurture positive traits in people (at least, that is what I am hoping).

I can relate to your point of view very well as I also adopt similar if not identical practices. Particularly the fact that I'm technically Atheist but believe in god for my own satisfaction and the benefits that come along from believing in a church and meaning in life. I often also believe like you that humans are capable of so much more. Unfortunately unlike you, I keep seeing disappointment lol

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Auguste Comte was a sociologist.

Auguste Comte was also crazy. Did you ever read the role he imagined for women?

That is more or less my understanding of humanism as well, though I don't really know the history behind it. Stop putting faith in a higher, detached being for salvation and start putting the responsibility upon your self and other human beings. First and foremost (in my mind at least), it is a form of respect as the underlying implication is that human beings are indeed capable of achieving their own salvation. This is what I want to believe.

God is a nice concept (I just see it as the universe). There is so much that is worthy of joy, curiosity and excitement. Just don't ask God to save you because it can't listen. We can choose to listen to each other though.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Auguste Comte was also crazy. Did you ever read the role he imagined for women?

That is more or less my understanding of humanism as well, though I don't really know the history behind it. Stop putting faith in a higher, detached being for salvation and start putting the responsibility upon your self and other human beings. First and foremost (in my mind at least), it is a form of respect as the underlying implication is that human beings are indeed capable of achieving their own salvation. This is what I want to believe.

God is a nice concept (I just see it as the universe). There is so much that is worthy of joy, curiosity and excitement. Just don't ask God to save you because it can't listen. We can choose to listen to each other though.

I liked this way of putting it:

http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/s...ost916472.html

[Clint Cora]

I have a friend in Montreal who is part of a monthly group of men who meet up just to talk about current issues they are going through as men. Darn, this is a good idea. There are so many similar groups out there for women but not many for men.

Historically, men have been more reserved in terms of talking about their issues especially in front of other men. But now such a group allows them to do so and also just in the company of other men.

I think there should be more such groups out there.

[TheOrange]

Never take anything a woman tells you personally.