Wouldn't you feel the same as I do? - Empathy, beliefs, behavior

[Kean]

If your uncle died of lung cancer, and you saw the pictures of a smokers' lungs and brain, wouldn't you feel a bit disgusted? Wouldn't you feel disgusted about smoking? Wouldn't it have the same impact on you as it had on me, that I decided to never smoke in my whole life?
Wouldn't you stop smoking as well?

This is not a debate about smoking, but a discussion about why some of us (especially people like me), enjoy sharing information with others not just for the sake of sharing the information, but also because we feel that if others had the same experience and/or knew the same things about something, they would change their beliefs about it in a similar way we did, and also change their behavior.

This is not mainly/only to discuss about how efficient or useful it is to persuade someone and try to "convert" them (I think this depends on each individuals' charisma and personal influence), but on why we try to "convert" others and whether it might be a wrong feeling after all.

The question arose in another topic (Why do you discuss on forums? Is it always good?) in which I ask whether it is better to suggest my sometimes radically different approaches to life, or simply "live and let live" by my models so that others can - if they want - decide to follow me.

I further elaborated on my feeling (Why do you discuss on forums? Is it always good?), which I will summarize:
I feel that if others ("humans") are similar to me, then they should also react the same way as me if all our information and knowledge was the same (as in the example of smoking) - conversely, I sometimes also feel that if others behave differently from me, they must be having some information or experience that I don't have...

In both cases, what I am searching for is a sort of coherence and conformity, in which both parties agree on a final conclusion... since both parties are similar.

Don't you also expect people who are similar to you to reach similar conclusions as yourself? Similar beliefs, and, as a consequence, similar decisions? If they don't... don't you pause a while and wonder about the reason of the difference?

Discuss

[Plays With Life]

I actually prefer people who make decisions I can't predict. Makes things more interesting.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Kean

If your uncle died of lung cancer, and you saw the pictures of a smokers' lungs and brain, wouldn't you feel a bit disgusted? Wouldn't you feel disgusted about smoking? Wouldn't it have the same impact on you as it had on me, that I decided to never smoke in my whole life?
Wouldn't you stop smoking as well?

I know this isn't a discussion on smoking, but I'd like to toss this much out there...

I find it more interesting that people can look at a case of someone dying of lung cancer and feel compelled to share that with others, but can't look at a case where someone is, say, morbidly obese and not feel that same desire to share and to "help" others.

And I'm not defending smoking by any means. It's just, it seems like smoking has become the patsy for a lot of aggression with people and that most people aren't being truthful with themselves about why they feel compelled to intrude on people's personal lives (i.e. why they smoke) but only in one particular area. And those same people would worry about the person's feelings in they mentioned something like obesity.

Originally Posted by Kean

Don't you also expect people who are similar to you to reach similar conclusions as yourself? Similar beliefs, and, as a consequence, similar decisions? If they don't... don't you pause a while and wonder about the reason of the difference?

The answer to your question is no, I don't. Being similar isn't necessary a garauntee that you can replicate behavior/beliefs.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by James81

The answer to your question is no, I don't. Being similar isn't necessary a garauntee that you can replicate behavior/beliefs.

As this forum can attest to The folks here have wildly different beliefs and approaches to the same situation. And I think most have heard the information behind most / all of those beliefs and approaches. But not everyone takes that info and does the same thing with it.

[Kean]

I'm not sure whether my question was understood.

What I am trying to point out is that if there was true empathy between people (through exchange of information - by which I don't mean just rational knowledge or reasoning, but also other subconscious factors that can be shared), in the long run, their motives and visions in life could converge and even coincide.

Let me try to over-simplify (perhaps the smoking example was not appropriate...) with the following model:
A believes in God.
B does not believe in God.
Both are similar ("humans"), yet have different beliefs.
A and B exchange information about why A believes and B doesn't.
The information may consist of:
- individual personal experiences
- the respective emotions
- knowledge, as in hard facts
- reasoning, as in debate and logic
- etc.
I think that if really 100% information is exchanged about each of them, there should be a common conclusion which both A and B will believe in, derived from the sum of all knowledge and personal experiences.
The conclusion may be even more ignorance! e.g. A has evidence of real life personal encounters with God, whereas B has a scientific proof against the existence of God. Which might lead to the conclusion that either/both subjective experience and the specific scientific proof are flawed.

Another reason I am asking this is because it is relevant in a wider context that has been bugging me for a while. For example, we often hear, "Change yourself before you change the world." etc. It somehow implies that the world cannot be changed and that the need to "try to change others" is a bad trait.

Why would you think it is bad to try changing others?

[Plays With Life]

Do you know about the subjective reality idea?

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Kean

I'm not sure whether my question was understood.

What I am trying to point out is that if there was true empathy between people (through exchange of information - by which I don't mean just rational knowledge or reasoning, but also other subconscious factors that can be shared), in the long run, their motives and visions in life could converge and even coincide.

You are forgetting one thing... people are subborn and do not usually change believes, unless they want to.

If I believe in God, no science is going to stop me from believing. That is the entire point of believing, not having proof, yet accepting something as truth.

Same the other way around: if I do not believe in God, a million people can tell me they have daily get-togethers with God, I will not believe them. I will ask for evidence and if they cannot produce, I will not believe them.

Another reason I am asking this is because it is relevant in a wider context that has been bugging me for a while. For example, we often hear, "Change yourself before you change the world." etc. It somehow implies that the world cannot be changed and that the need to "try to change others" is a bad trait.

Why would you think it is bad to try changing others?

It is bad because it is an exercise in futility. Like carrying water from the ocean.

it is impossible to change others. Only you can change you and your believes. you can try and infuence others, yes. But you cannot change them unless they decide on some level to let themselves change.

[James81]

I get what you are saying. And the realistic answer is that people will believe what they want to believe. Most people don't enter discussions to hear the other viewpoint. They enter discussions to cast their view onto others. Now imagine two people coming together to "discuss" an issue, and each one entering that discussion from theh viewpoint that they are there to convince the other one of their own viewpoint (NOT to get all the facts). Now, throw in our "ego" factor and what do you think will happen?

Both will walk away with the same beliefs they entered with. They will have gained some skill in debating, perhaps, and some new views, but neither is likely to adopt any new beliefs unless those new beliefs were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It's the same reason why there are thousands of threads here on this forum filled with people asking for advice that they rarely ever listen to. And that's because a lot of people posting for advice here aren't looking for new viewpoints on the subject (although they say and even THINK they are). Most are looking for validation for what they already believe or for convincing of solutions that they've already thought of.

I'm guilty of this btw. Don't mean to make myself seem self-righteous or like I'm above others for pointing that out.

Originally Posted by Kean

Another reason I am asking this is because it is relevant in a wider context that has been bugging me for a while. For example, we often hear, "Change yourself before you change the world." etc. It somehow implies that the world cannot be changed and that the need to "try to change others" is a bad trait.

Why would you think it is bad to try changing others?

Nah, it doesn't imply that the world can't be changed. It implies that you can't change the world until you change yourself. The ability to adapt is a key trait of all the people who have every made a dent in history.

And it's not bad to change others. But you can't change others until you change yourself. You can't compel someone to go a mile with you if you aren't willing to walk tat mile yourself.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

Do you know about the subjective reality idea?

Sure, and the more information is exchanged about the reasons underlying a specific belief or behavior, the more it is possible to synchronize the perception of reality.

Imagine the subjective realities as two separate fields. The more information is exchanged, the more these two fields overlap and - in extremis - enable to "merge" the different subjective realities.

2 become 1

It is an ideal, but it is possible to a certain extent or there wouldn't be civilization as it exists today. In the end all subjective realities derive from the transmission of information, through an interaction of culture, education, knowledge and personal experience. Our personal decisions are in large part influenced by what we learned.

It may be realistically impossible to synchronize all human information and subjective experiences that ever existed, but at least at a perception level, I think it is possible to "tend towards".

[Plays With Life]

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't personally have any interest in doing that, or seeing it happen.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by ssandra

You are forgetting one thing... people are subborn and do not usually change believes, unless they want to.

Willingness and ability are two different things. Though I believe even willingness is constantly influenceable.

If I believe in God, no science is going to stop me from believing. That is the entire point of believing, not having proof, yet accepting something as truth.
Same the other way around: if I do not believe in God, a million people can tell me they have daily get-togethers with God, I will not believe them. I will ask for evidence and if they cannot produce, I will not believe them.

The whole example with God was just a simplification of what I was trying to say but even in this case... what is it that leads you to accept something as truth? What experiences? What feelings? What emotions? Why do you choose to believe? Also the answer to these questions are information, and the more information is gathered, the more you would contribute to the common conclusion you would reach with those whom you debate with.
(in the latter case: what makes you think that evidence is more important than other peoples' testimony? What makes you sceptic about them? What experiences, feelings, etc.? All that is information)

It is bad because it is an exercise in futility. Like carrying water from the ocean.
it is impossible to change others. Only you can change you and your believes. you can try and infuence others, yes. But you cannot change them unless they decide on some level to let themselves change.

My question was pre-assuming that it is possible to change them (and, by personal experience, I have changed people - or influenced others to decide to change - depending on whether you believe in free will or not, respectively), and asking what is so bad about wanting to change them.

Or, to express my question another way: What is so good about the "live and let live" philosophy?

[Kean]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't personally have any interest in doing that, or seeing it happen.

Are you indifferent towards it, or against? If against, why?

[Plays With Life]

I enjoy the diversity of approaches to life, and opinions about things. I just don't have any desire to see two people who think differently, think the same.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

I enjoy the diversity of approaches to life, and opinions about things. I just don't have any desire to see two people who think differently, think the same.

Why do you enjoy such diversity (of opinions and lifestyle)?

Do you think diversity has an intrinsic value in the long run?

[this is fun]

Originally Posted by Kean

are similar to me, then they should also react the same way as me if all our information and knowledge was the same (as in the example of smoking) - conversely,
I sometimes also feel that if others behave differently from me, they must be having some information or experience that I don't have...

You think that there cannot be two answers/behaviours equally good and acceptable prompted by the same initial information input?

Originally Posted by Kean

Don't you also expect people who are similar to you to reach similar conclusions as yourself? Similar beliefs, and, as a consequence, similar decisions? If they don't... don't you pause a while and wonder about the reason of the difference?

Of course, some people's decisions make me wonder, but it's their choice. I don't expect for example my friends who are in many areas similar to me, to always reach similar conclusions as me. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. And sometimes both version are possible.
People have different goals in their lives so I imagine they choose different paths to get there.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by James81

people will believe what they want to believe. Most people don't enter discussions to hear the other viewpoint. They enter discussions to cast their view onto others. [...] Now, throw in our "ego" factor and what do you think will happen?

[...]
Most are looking for validation for what they already believe or for convincing of solutions that they've already thought of.

People will believe what they want to believe, and will also behave accordingly That's what I also stated in Using science to justify your lifestyle - empirics vs normative

However, while I do think we're looking for validation, I think that some of us don't look for validation alone, but quality and conformity (what I mean by "peer review"), i.e. "I am pretty sure this is the right way/decision, however what if I'm wrong? Let's hear what others think about my reasoning."

There's also a group of people who think "philosophically". I take something new from almost every discussion, and although in directly speaking I only express my own views, I digest and elaborate the additional information learned through a debate in my daily life.
e.g. I am convinced that "belief X" is right and express my logic in a forum debate. Someone else says that something underlying "belief X" might be flawed - and has a reasonable argument. At that moment I entirely change my "belief map".

I think there are two extremities: exchanging information / discussing / debating for the sake of knowledge and curiosity, and doing so for some practical reason in order to reach a decision for their life.
The former represent the philosophers (the love of knowledge), whereas the others are... pragmatists.

At the moment I am somewhere in between, as I discuss both to learn new things, and to apply the new things in my life

[Kean]

Originally Posted by James81

I know this isn't a discussion on smoking, but I'd like to toss this much out there...

I find it more interesting that people can look at a case of someone dying of lung cancer and feel compelled to share that with others, but can't look at a case where someone is, say, morbidly obese and not feel that same desire to share and to "help" others.

And I'm not defending smoking by any means. It's just, it seems like smoking has become the patsy for a lot of aggression with people and that most people aren't being truthful with themselves about why they feel compelled to intrude on people's personal lives (i.e. why they smoke) but only in one particular area. And those same people would worry about the person's feelings in they mentioned something like obesity.

Let me answer to this as well, though I guess even this deserves a new topic

As a matter of fact, I also had problems with my own health due to food, and I constantly advocate a healthy body. Sometimes I get pretty offensive when speaking with fat people, but I do it in a joking way so that they understand and get the message well. I used to be fat as well, so personal experience always serves as a good anecdote.

I believe there are three reasons why the smoking problem is targeted by the public more than the obesity problem:
1) I know that in America eating fast-food is, well, somehow ingrained into the local daily lives and culture, and there's also this strange stigma against improving ones' appearance - even if it is for the sake of ones' health (Be yourself, be happy with yourself, don't change yourself, etc. - I mean, think of all those teenage films in which at the end the fat guy wins even if he was bullied by all friends!)
2) However, a more serious reason I believe is that smoking, as opposed to obesity, has a direct externality effect. While a teenager eating lots of hamburgers may influence other teenagers to do so through trends, a smoker deals instant damage to the people surrounding him. Of course, there's much debate about whether passive smoking is that hazardous or not, but I think in the public opinion this is one of the most important reasons.
3) Finally, and this is my "favorite" reason for speaking against smoking (yet it is not that known to the public), smoking directly alters the brain, and behavior, and is perhaps the most evident proof that a humans' free will is bound by these chemical interactions. Nearly all smokers show strikingly similar and predictable behaviors throughout their smoking life-span.

...and finally, though this is not an official reason but my personal experience and what I believe to be the personal experience of so many other people, one of the behaviors smoking induces in the smoker is arrogance. Nearly all people whom I know who are smokers (including my very good friends, etc.) are generally more arrogant than the average person.

Stereotypically, the obese teenager is the one who is bullied, whereas the teenager who starts smoking is the arrogant brat who tries to be the "alpha male" of the group.

Perhaps also others perceive this and therefore tend to criticize smokers more than obese people.

[this is fun]

Originally Posted by Kean

Or, to express my question another way: What is so good about the "live and let live" philosophy?

Has anyone ever told you what you should do even if you didn't ask them to? Did you accept their advice? If no, why didn't you? I'm sure you just wanted them to let you live your own life.

If you believe that all people should react/hold beliefs similar to yours it implies that you think you know best. And do you, why should we believe you? This is of course a rhetorical question And if someone believes they're always right they don't grow and learn new things.

If you believe someone else, then again you think they know best and how do you know that? Of course, there are people I trust and I ask them for advice, but before actually taking their advice and implementing it, I always ask myself whether I'd be willing to accept consequences of that choice, sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes no.

As far as live and let live thing goes, if I saw a friend of mine being destructive (doing something that I believe would endanger her/his life) I would try to help and sort of ''meddle'' in her/his affairs, but the bottom line is, if they don't want to change there's not much you can do. I think we should get involved when it comes to helping people in different countries, or issues concerning health of people in general.

But other then that, yes, it's live and let live for me.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by this is fun

You think that there cannot be two answers/behaviours equally good and acceptable prompted by the same initial information input?

I'm not talking about them being "good/bad" or "acceptable/unacceptable", but merely that it would not be consequent.

Also, I am not only talking about information input, but also the pre-information that elaborates the input. As I said on another topic:
Think of the information to make a decision upon ("subject") as ingredients. And think of what makes people different (their "identity") as ingredients as well.
If they mix only the "subject"-ingredients (e.g. believe in God or not) they will behave differently, but if they mix all their "identity"-ingredients (e.g. what experiences, cultural history, feelings, a, b, c, d, etc. and all other variables makes them want to believe in God), they would behave as if they had one identity and will behave the same, as a direct consequence.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by this is fun

Has anyone ever told you what you should do even if you didn't ask them to? Did you accept their advice?

Yes - all the time. And I never felt that they should "let me live my own life"! In my whole life, I have never told anyone "Mind your own business!"... somehow I feel that everyone is everyones' business, since I also perceive all humans to be part of the same big family Or simply because I like exchanging ideas and enjoy knowing what others think.

Another reason may be that I trust many. I have rarely been deceived by others and always feel this "brotherly bond" towards every person I come across. I have never felt that anyone is a "stranger".

If you believe that all people should react/hold beliefs similar to yours it implies that you think you know best.

No... it simply implies that I think we're all similar.

What I do strive for, however, is to know best; yet how can I know best with my individual knowledge alone?

The sum of two individuals' knowledge is better than their individual knowledge separately [this is what I'm saying in this thread, and have experienced so far].

I think we should get involved when it comes to helping people in different countries, or issues concerning health of people in general.

But other then that, yes, it's live and let live for me.

What exactly do you include in "other than that"?
What are your criteria for deciding between minding your own business and "meddling" with others?

[this is fun]

Originally Posted by Kean

Yes - all the time. And I never felt that they should "let me live my own life"! In my whole life, I have never told anyone "Mind your own business!"... somehow I feel that everyone is everyones' business, since I also perceive all humans to be part of the same big family

That's good for you. But I've seen situations where people should have told someone to mind their own business.

Originally Posted by Kean

Or simply because I like exchanging ideas and enjoy knowing what others think.

Me too.

Originally Posted by Kean

Another reason may be that I trust many. I have rarely been deceived by others

Me too.

Originally Posted by Kean

The sum of two individuals' knowledge is better than their individual knowledge separately [this is what I'm saying in this thread, and have experienced so far].

Yes, I agree it is, because it provides you with more choices.
You spoke of mixing ''ingredients'' in your other posts, if they mix all their "identity"-ingredients they would behave as if they had one identity, but here's what questions came to mind: what if some ingredients cannot be mixed (oil/water thing)? Do all ingredients keep some of their hm, ''uniqueness'' (to oversimplify, would we all have a data base of every possible experience/feelings etc in our head)? If these ingredients mix and merge don't they alter their structure in a way and you don't know what you'll get as a final result?

So as you can see this mixing part is confusing for me I'm not quite sure what you mean, are the mixed ''ingredients'' kept intact in that ''dough'' but available to all, or they go through a change (some experiences cancel each other)?

When you say they would behave as if they had one identity and will behave the same, what happens when you get a different context or situation in life, they would react the same but would that be the best choice?

Originally Posted by Kean

What exactly do you include in "other than that"?
What are your criteria for deciding between minding your own business and "meddling" with others?

I cannot list every possible situation, but let's say if I saw someone putting at risk/hurting themselves or others: if a friend was depressed I'd try to help, if someone close had a gambling problem I'd try to bring the subject up with them, problems with alcohol/drugs/violence etc.
On the other hand, if they told me they wanted to plant a tree in the middle of their living room I'd say okay

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself clearly today Why don't you think like me?

[James81]

Originally Posted by Kean

...and finally, though this is not an official reason but my personal experience and what I believe to be the personal experience of so many other people, one of the behaviors smoking induces in the smoker is arrogance. Nearly all people whom I know who are smokers (including my very good friends, etc.) are generally more arrogant than the average person.

Heh, I can get on board with everything else you said (in both of the posts you made to me), but this one sort of jumped out at me outta nowhere.

I'm trying to think of all the smokers I know, and I can't think of anybody who I know who smokes who is arrogant. Actually, this is a trait that I've seen more in non-smokers than smokers. At least in the sense of when it comes to smoking. Non-smokers can really look down their nose at you and be uppity and downright rude to you if they see a cigarette in your hand. *shrug*

I'd also like to point out that a lot of smokers use it for a crutch. Which means they think they are inadequate in some way, so they use the cigarette to try and make up for that inadequacy (it doesn't, but the temporary high it gives makes them think it does).

The part about altering the brain was good stuff. Really made me think.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by James81

I'm trying to think of all the smokers I know, and I can't think of anybody who I know who smokes who is arrogant. Actually, this is a trait that I've seen more in non-smokers than smokers. At least in the sense of when it comes to smoking. Non-smokers can really look down their nose at you and be uppity and downright rude to you if they see a cigarette in your hand. *shrug*

This is Subjective Reality (as Plays With Life would say) at work

But see, the fact that I shared my experience led you to share yours; and now we both know that each of us experience each other the same way as opposed to ourselves. The sum of two experiences is better than each alone!
For myself, I think this leads to a conclusion: smokers may not be arrogant as they seem, after all; it is just a trick of subjective reality
You may come to the same conclusion about non-smokers...
---> we have a common conclusion!

Perhaps, we can now both agree that, in general, smoking does divide people though, right?

The part about altering the brain was good stuff. Really made me think.

This might be of further interest to you:
The Cognative and Behavioral Effects of Nicotine: An Argument for Brain=Behavior
It summarizes some of the technical aspects of smoking and leads to similar philosophical conclusions as I do (the author of that essay is strictly naturalist / matter-over-mind / nature-over-nurture )

Quoting the most important parts:
"People who are addicted to cigarettes show behavioral patterns that are often contrary to those they would chose to exhibit. A big part of the discussion on whether brain=behavior has been the issue of free will. We all must eat, drink, sleep, and breathe; these are behaviors dictated by the brain as a result of the body's needs. If we want to survive, we have relatively little choice in these matters. However, no one needs to smoke to survive. If we define free will as the ability, when given more than one option or course, do choose and enact the option you want, then the choice to smoke or not to smoke should be a matter of free will. For a smoker however, this is not the case. I live in a smoking dormitory, and have heard numerous times the exclamations of friends swearing that they are going to quit smoking - I usualy see them lighting up before the end of the day."
[...]
Of the 30% of smokers who try to quit each year, only about 3% succeed. But even a smoker does not need nicotine to survive. I found no evidence of people having died from nicotine withdrawl. So if neuron functions can win out over free will - if matter can win out over "mind" - then this leads me to believe that the brain really does dictate behavior. Though 30% of smokers may desire to quit, the functioning of their neurons will not allow them to."

[Kean]

Originally Posted by this is fun

That's good for you. But I've seen situations where people should have told someone to mind their own business.
[...]
I cannot list every possible situation, but let's say if I saw someone putting at risk/hurting themselves or others: if a friend was depressed I'd try to help, if someone close had a gambling problem I'd try to bring the subject up with them, problems with alcohol/drugs/violence etc.
On the other hand, if they told me they wanted to plant a tree in the middle of their living room I'd say okay

Why would you say okay?

You use "hurting themselves or others" as a criteria, but even "hurt" may be subjective depending on the beliefs of that person. Returning to the smoking problem; you know a person hurts himself (and others) in the process of smoking, yet he/she may think that it's his own business/decision/etc.

So, even if you try to mind your own business, you use your own definition, your own criteria of when or when not to mind other peoples' business. And you probably couldn't do otherwise since you need some point of reference in order to make decisions regarding your interaction with other people - and that in turn does depend on your beliefs... and the information you have.

What makes you think that the tree in the living room won't hurt anyone?
(Being extreme for examples' sake) The roots of the tree could jeopardize the architectural foundations of the building and increase the risk of it collapsing and killing everyone under the rubble, including you if you're living in the same building. Your friend who wants to plant the tree (or wants to keep smoking) may not know all that information...

One of my reference beliefs is that, since we're all human and live in a big society, we're also all interrelated: The decisions of one person may have consequences on the decisions and behavior of another person.
OK, so one tree may not be enough to collapse the building. But since he planted it, and he's oh so confident and everyone admires him ( ), everyone else in the building wants to plant a tree as well and follow his example!

One persons' actions and words can serve as an example to other people.

e.g. If a few people base their decision to become promiscuous on asymmetric information (e.g. "All humans are born promiscuous."), some might follow them, then many will follow them, and in little time it becomes a social trend... and thereby increase the profit of pharmaceutical companies producing drugs against STDs state health expenditures, your income tax... but on top of everything, it reduces your chances to find a faithful partner

Whatever happens in society affects you and depends on what its components do. Its' components are other individuals and... you.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Kean

This is Subjective Reality (as Plays With Life would say) at work

But see, the fact that I shared my experience led you to share yours; and now we both know that each of us experience each other the same way as opposed to ourselves. The sum of two experiences is better than each alone!
For myself, I think this leads to a conclusion: smokers may not be arrogant as they seem, after all; it is just a trick of subjective reality
You may come to the same conclusion about non-smokers...
---> we have a common conclusion!

Perhaps, we can now both agree that, in general, smoking does divide people though, right?

I can agree that it's subjective reality.

I don't agree that smoking divides people.

So, we each came to our own, NEW conclusions after our discussion. And what you are saying is that if you discuss it enough, then we should both eventually reach the same conclusions, but I don't think we have enough time to actually discuss it enough to where we would reach the same conclusion. Plus, people aren't that patient to discuss things long enough to do that yet.

Originally Posted by Kean

This might be of further interest to you:
The Cognative and Behavioral Effects of Nicotine: An Argument for Brain=Behavior
It summarizes some of the technical aspects of smoking and leads to similar philosophical conclusions as I do (the author of that essay is strictly naturalist / matter-over-mind / nature-over-nurture )

Quoting the most important parts:
"People who are addicted to cigarettes show behavioral patterns that are often contrary to those they would chose to exhibit. A big part of the discussion on whether brain=behavior has been the issue of free will. We all must eat, drink, sleep, and breathe; these are behaviors dictated by the brain as a result of the body's needs. If we want to survive, we have relatively little choice in these matters. However, no one needs to smoke to survive. If we define free will as the ability, when given more than one option or course, do choose and enact the option you want, then the choice to smoke or not to smoke should be a matter of free will. For a smoker however, this is not the case. I live in a smoking dormitory, and have heard numerous times the exclamations of friends swearing that they are going to quit smoking - I usualy see them lighting up before the end of the day."
[...]
Of the 30% of smokers who try to quit each year, only about 3% succeed. But even a smoker does not need nicotine to survive. I found no evidence of people having died from nicotine withdrawl. So if neuron functions can win out over free will - if matter can win out over "mind" - then this leads me to believe that the brain really does dictate behavior. Though 30% of smokers may desire to quit, the functioning of their neurons will not allow them to."

Thanks. I'll check it out later.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by Kean

Why do you enjoy such diversity (of opinions and lifestyle)?

Do you think diversity has an intrinsic value in the long run?

I think I mentioned this in another thread once upon a time. I don't know why I enjoy something, or don't enjoy something. I wonder about it sometimes, but I don't have an answer.

[this is fun]

Originally Posted by Kean

but even "hurt" may be subjective depending on the beliefs of that person.

I agree. And that's why I think it's very difficult to have a general rule that applies to everyone and all the time. Personal example, I'm planning on getting a small tattoo, some of my friends think it's great and some of them think I'm crazy for wanting to do it. Those who are against it expressed their reasons (it hurts, you'll be stuck with it forever, you can get an infection etc), but for all the examples they gave me where something went wrong, I listed examples where everything went well.

Originally Posted by Kean

Returning to the smoking problem; you know a person hurts himself (and others) in the process of smoking, yet he/she may think that it's his own business/decision/etc.

Okay, but let's say you warn them about all health risks, present good arguments, and they still refuse to quit or they don't quite get it, the bottom line is there's nothing else you could do. If they smoke for example outside or in their own home (with no kids present) what right do I have to force them not to smoke in their home. As far as their health and possible future medical expenses that other tax payers could be forced to pay, well I guess you could say they should pay higher taxes, but what about people who drink too much, or are obese and at a higher risk for many conditions.

Originally Posted by Kean

So, even if you try to mind your own business, you use your own definition, your own criteria of when or when not to mind other peoples' business. And you probably couldn't do otherwise since you need some point of reference in order to make decisions regarding your interaction with other people - and that in turn does depend on your beliefs... and the information you have.

I agree again

Originally Posted by Kean

What makes you think that the tree in the living room won't hurt anyone?
(Being extreme for examples' sake) The roots of the tree could jeopardize the architectural foundations of the building and increase the risk of it collapsing and killing everyone under the rubble, including you if you're living in the same building. Your friend who wants to plant the tree (or wants to keep smoking) may not know all that information...

Returning to the tree Why do you assume they wouldn't check out what's the best way to do it? When I said I'd be okay with it, I meant provided it was safe. You said it yourself you believe people are interrelated so I'd like to believe that other people would be careful about whether their decisions have consequences for others as well. Provided all is safe, would you have anything against that tree?

Originally Posted by Kean

One persons' actions and words can serve as an example to other people.

But it doesn't mean they have to do the same thing. I agree that some of my decisions may affect other people and the other way around, other people's decisions may prompt me to want to do something, however at the end of the day, I have to accept responsibility for my actions and consequences if I decide to follow someone's example.
On the other hand, maybe my decision would have good consequence for someone else as well.

Originally Posted by Kean

it reduces your chances to find a faithful partner

From a tree to a faithful partner never mind then, I'll plant a tree

Originally Posted by Kean

Whatever happens in society affects you and depends on what its components do. Its' components are other individuals and... you.

Yes, but it depends to what extent, not all things influence me in the same way. And also, maybe that influence could be a good thing.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by James81

And what you are saying is that if you discuss it enough, then we should both eventually reach the same conclusions, but I don't think we have enough time to actually discuss it enough to where we would reach the same conclusion. Plus, people aren't that patient to discuss things long enough to do that yet.

Time is the enemy of mankind As a matter of fact, we have too little of it to waste our life on.

So would you say that in the end, for an individual, it would be more practical (for himself and for others) to adopt the different beliefs and behaviors in his/her own life and "be a living example" rather than discussing about what works or not?
(and this would also answer my other topic in which I ask whether there's a point in discussing about too distant differences in ideas and beliefs)

[Kean]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

I think I mentioned this in another thread once upon a time. I don't know why I enjoy something, or don't enjoy something. I wonder about it sometimes, but I don't have an answer.

I feel that I once liked diversity for the sake of my personal opportunistic plans - e.g. I liked to organize my world in "good people" and "bad people" or "people who got it right" and "people who got it wrong". It was easy to categorize and see so many differences because it gave me an opportunity to identify with someone.

Throughout time, however, I learned that all humans are the same in potential, and thus it would be "inconsistent" to me.

I don't value diversity for the sake of it: e.g. say there is a Muslim engineer and a Christian engineer who work together for a long time. I feel that if they discussed thoroughly and questioned each and every element of their beliefs, also sharing all information they have, they would finally create one single common set of beliefs (in this example, a single faith).

[Kean]

Originally Posted by this is fun

Okay, but let's say you warn them about all health risks, present good arguments, and they still refuse to quit or they don't quite get it, the bottom line is there's nothing else you could do.

What I'm asking is whether this would truly be the end of it, i.e. do you acknowledge that they don't quite get it? Obviously, in the specific case of smoking it's an entirely difficult issue (see the link I suggested to James81), since smoking heavily alters behavior and decision-making.

Returning to the tree Why do you assume they wouldn't check out what's the best way to do it? When I said I'd be okay with it, I meant provided it was safe. You said it yourself you believe people are interrelated so I'd like to believe that other people would be careful about whether their decisions have consequences for others as well. Provided all is safe, would you have anything against that tree?
[...]
But it doesn't mean they have to do the same thing. I agree that some of my decisions may affect other people and the other way around, other people's decisions may prompt me to want to do something, however at the end of the day, I have to accept responsibility for my actions and consequences if I decide to follow someone's example.
On the other hand, maybe my decision would have good consequence for someone else as well.
[...]
Yes, but it depends to what extent, not all things influence me in the same way. And also, maybe that influence could be a good thing.

This requires a totally new discussion, but it is the basis of most of the things I say here, and most of my personal behaviors.

I have thought about this thoroughly even from a non-philosophical point of view and one lateral insight prooved to be useful: the cultural backgrounds on individual responsibility.
From what I gathered, the American and British societies have many individualistic elements in their culture. Everyone is responsible for themselves, their career, their decisions, their whole life.
(And this may also be one reason why it is so common to hear that each wants to mind their own business... which, following insights from James81, may also correlate with impatience).

Compare Italy and the USA. Even though quality-wise it might not be the top, the Italian health care services are entirely free for everyone. A surgery that in the USA can cost up to $20,000 is free+a service expense of around $50 in Italy. You can find numerous other examples in social policy: America is generally more "free"... but from what I perceive also more careless towards the less lucky individuals (here in Continental Europe, we always often hear horror stories about doctors letting patients die just because the patients have no more money/insurance...).

The reason for this difference, according to many social scientists, is that, generally, European (and Oriental/Asian) cultures acknowledge the existence of misfortune. A criminal may have become one because of a bad upbringing, poor education, and other negative conditions that influenced his personal life history and behavior.

To put it in very extreme stereotypes, US would entirely attribute the criminals' behavior to his own responsibility and as a measure against people like him, create stronger police enforcement. In Europe, policy-makers would try to improve education in the poor regions and help parents give their children a better life.

These are just many examples to show that according to some, individual responsibility is just a way to "play the cards we're already dealt with".

I grew up in Europe (which may influence my views), but mainly from what I have learned through psychology, biology and social sciences, I think that individual responsibility is very limited.

Actually, [negative] social trends would not exist if there truly was such a thing as individual responsibility. You can say "100 people are truly being irresponsible by planting trees in their apartment" or you can say "These 100 people are simply following a trend, totally unaware of the consequences of their actions, but also lack that information."

A possible compromise to our different views is this:
We can have individual responsibility of what we know.
If I know that planting the tree will destroy the building, and I still do it just to follow the trend, I am being irresponsible.

Still, even in this case, there's a lot of evidence (not just in Europe, but scientifically, globally) that social influence is generally more powerful than individual decisions.
Some American scientists have called it "groupthink" ( Groupthink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), and as you can read, most of the measures against it must be taken OUTSIDE, and not by the members.

Another good example depicting what I'm talking about is this:
Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Out of which I would like to quote especially the following:
Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

"Authority" here may be your supervisor, but also your social circle which grants you acceptance and protection.

These are just a few of numerous statements depicting that individual responsibility is often absent, or merely subjective.

The implication of all this is that... I think the reason to "meddle" in other peoples' business is valid, especially if we take into consideration the possibility that "people don't know what's best for them"! This may sound a bit strange, but, yeah, they are the basis of my behavior.

The question whether it is more practical and efficient to actively meddle/discuss or to "live by example" is another one... I opened this thread to ask whether it is right to have the intention to convert others to your beliefs and behavior, if you're truly convinced about them and can back them up.

(more... Social influence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )