A Curiosity on Human Behavior

The voice in my head is back (I call him 'The Questioner') and has had me pondering yet again a certain trait of us humans and our societies that perplexes me. In search for an answer and for my own entertainment, I bring this question to The Forum. Forgive me in advance for my lack of vocabulary, but i'll try my best to explain what I mean.

In a vague, blanket-statement sort of way, it could be asked as 'why can't we all just get along'? To be more specific, I wonder why topics of contention, issues of opposing viewpoints, any sort of dissention of what one thinks about anothers views, beliefs, personal habits, etc, seem to more likely than not devolve into unusable nonsense and actual personal dislike? I'm not saying anyone should throw their beliefs aside and just go with the flow against your wishes so as to not raise a fuss or ruffle some feathers. Not at all. But why does it seem that what could have, or at least SHOULD have, started out as an idea or discussion about a certain topic for the purpose of education or resolution of a problem eventually declines into no more than namecalling, taking sides, and refuting everything else the 'bad side' has to say?

I bring this up because I've thought of this idea many times while thinking about our (American) society and have noticed the same thing happen in smaller settings, be it a workforce, a school environment, politics, and yes, this forum. And although this forum isn't as 'true' as real life (I think mkl said something basically meaning 'in real life you act appropriately so you don't get shunned (or punched in the nose), but in a forum you can hide in annonimity as are free to act as an ass'. Not a quote, but that was the gist of it, I believe) it is still following relatively the same pattern as I see in actual life. Gone are the days, it seems, when opposing forces can come together, spar idea vs idea, thought vs thought, concept vs concept, and leave smiling, shaking hands, and thankful for the experience. Nowadays, it seems to me, everything is about taking sides and 'winning' by any means neccesary, with eye pokes and genital trauma aplenty. Or maybe those days never existed? Am I so naive to think that a Republican and a Communist, an Athiest and an Evangelical, a Leafs fan and a Senators fan, could have some day long ago, or sometime in the near future, be under the same roof, exchange ideas of opposition, and leave better people?

I'm not using the forum in this example to point fingers specifically at it, as I said my question applies to all areas of life, but merely using it because it is something with which we all participate in and are familiar with. In the threads which have gotten high response traffic, say 50-100 posts or more, how many would you say end productive (even if they jump around on topics, nothing wrong with that) vs how many fall into a big, fat, jumbled pile bumblefunk (insults on beliefs, grammer, translation of legislature, etc) where we have gotten no closer to any answer, any resolution, any education, and have only sewn discord and widened the gap between ourselves evermore? The 'gun law' thread is a good example, or at least the one I'm using because I had a passion for it and am familiar with it. There were two sides (pro-gun and anti-gun) each with a different level of fervor (from 'I think they should be banned entirely' all the way to 'shooting robbers even after the threat of physical harm was gone' and many points in between) Vastly different views, yet, for a moment, there was actual conversation, trading of views, and I as a pro-gunner learned from both sides. It gave me an appreciation for the priveledge of owning and being able to carry as well as opened my eyes to concerns of anti-gunners, who's viewpoints I don't subscribe to still yet reminded me of things I need to do, specifically from a safety standpoint. This in my eyes is a true gift, (FOUND KNOWLEDGE), something that we rarely see anymore yet is SO EASY to get, but for some reason we take it from ourselves in many aspects of our lives. I returned to that thread to see it had fallen into the pile of bumblefunk, with everyone pointing fingers and trying to define 'the people'. I had flashbacks of Clinton asking what the meaning of 'is' is. Did the definition of 'the people' matter? Maybe as a side note, maybe, but even then I think not because regardless of if the Constitution is somehow wrong, People Are Allowed To Have Guns! It doesn't, didn't and hasn't changed that fact, so why so rabid on proving the other guy wrong? Why, at the expense of politeness, manners, respect, proper conversation, and ESPECIALLY the gift of learning and understanding, why do we throw that away for the purpose of 'winning'?

Forgive my American History knowledge, but one of our Great President, Kennedy, I think?...didn't he fill his cabinet with his opposition? Could it be he realized that the power of a resolution from many different viewpoints far exceed that of yes-men? Isn't there the old saying 'two heads are better than one'?

Maybe I'm old enough to know there's a fox in the henhouse, but still too young to know what a fox is or does. Or could be I'm so naive that I know there's a fox in the henhouse, but didn't know that we havent raised chickens since the '50's. I don't know. I'm a younger guy (just turned 30, if it matters) but was brought up what I considered to be 'old school'. A handshake and a promise was as good as, and many times greater than, any law binding document. A man was no more than his word, and his word was everything. A promise made was a promise kept. Any commitment was seen through to it's entirety. And, maybe above all, respect is not earned, respect is granted. It could be lost through actions, but no action was required to give it. I grew up thinking that's how the world works. Yet the older I get, the farther from the truth I'm seeing this to be. I think this goes along with my above paragraph, so I'm throwing it in for our older members to ponder and learn me with. Am I simply coming out of my youthful ideology, realizing the world for what it is? Or, is this new age of instant info via the internet and 20 different news channels just opening my eyes faster than I was expecting? Or, was there indeed a time when the idea's I've just written about opposition without animosity, without the need to 'win', was there a time when this existed, therefore giving me hope it may yet again return?

Please, I ask you, remember this is not a question specifically about the forum. I only used it to convey my point. Adding to the mire by saying 'cause so-and-so knows it all, so they have to be right', or 'cause so-and-so is a troll and needs the attention' does nothing for the thread and doesn't even touch the point. Why, in many aspects of real, actual life, from politics to belief systems to environmental issues, etc, why do we close our minds to those who don't follow our particular brand of thinking, thereby robbing ourselves from what could be life-, or even globaly changing information and ideas, why do we do this for nothing short of the sake of 'the win'? That, my friends The Forum, is the $25,000 question.

Maturity. That's my simple answer. In order to have a decent debate, you need to have 2 mature and articulate viewpoints. Seeing as anyone and everyone can join a forum, you won't get the same quality discussion like you would in a college campus. I think in order to really understand why threads go to the dump, you need to step back and look at the forum in general.

This is a gambling forum. It attracts all types of gamblers from professionals to degenerates. You have people who are all substance and you have those who are all ego all under one roof. When people present arguments, back them up with facts and hard data, what do you expect to happen to a person who is all ego? Is it any real surprise that they resort to mud slinging? It shouldn't be.

In a perfect world, we'd all debate and discuss issues by presenting facts, opinions, experience, and research. At the end of it all if we can't agree on a winner, we agree to disagree. That would take two adults though. Trying to debate the existence of Santa Claus with a grade 1 class will only go on for so long before someone finally calls you a poopoo head.

If you are looking for an area for quality discussion then you need to have people with enough maturity to respect other people's viewpoints without taking it personally. Considering that there is no shortage of egotistical, deluded, and selfish gamblers, I think you are asking the wrong forum. For example, you know that guy at your table who hasn't bathed in a month, blows smoke in your face, only bets the min and curses EVERY TIME he loses, won't shut up about the stupidest crap, and his breath smells worse than a horse's ass. That guy could very well have a huge post count on a gambling forum! You wouldn't give him the time of day in person, but you will on a forum because you can only pass judgment on his words. Sure it's ideal in the sense that everyone has the option to be heard in the same light as others, but expecting quality discussion to prevail is pretty unlikely considering those involved.

Communicating via postings on an Internet forum removes about 93% of the context that humans normally use in communication. We're basically unequipped to deal with it in a sensible, socially-relevant way. Virtually none of the arguments that have occurred here over the past 3 months would have occurred in person, even if the assembled happened to be in the same location. For example, suppose we're all on an airplane to Las Vegas, and the Wizard happened to be on the plane too and stood up and said "hey, I'm the Wizard, anyone want to have a discussion about gambling?" Many would join in, but you'd never get the same level of rancor that you have here. For example, if someone was really having trouble understanding craps, I'd get my dice and actually demonstrate the game in the aisle. Yes, I travel with dice -- usually cards too. Or if someone was making noise about how their roulette method was a guaranteed winner, I'd pull out my roulette wheel (just kidding - I'd use the dice again) and demonstrate that numbers are not historically dependent.

In person, if I'm explaining something about casino gaming, I sound like I know what I'm talking about so my credibility is immediately established even to a complete stranger. That context simply doesn't exist online. What context that does exist -- my past posts, for example -- is of an entirely different nature than in real-life. For example, you don't meet someone for the first time and, before you start actually talking, first review lots of their past conversations. Life doesn't work that way, but the Internet does. Point is, live interactions are so qualitatively different than online interactions that it's not at all surprising that the nature of our participations in them is also qualitatively different.

There are a lot of stressors, here AND in "real life", that contribute to disagreements. One of these is "confirmation bias", where we tend to ignore "information" that casts doubt on our opinions/beliefs, while we enthusiastically embrace that information that seems to validate those opinions. Another is the tendency to fiercely defend a position SIMPLY BECAUSE ONE HAS CHOSEN THAT POSITION. Blue is better than green? Darn tootin'! And I KNOW blue is by far the superior color. My daddy voted Blue, and so did my grandpappy, and by golly BLUE IS THE ONLY DECENT COLOR FOR GOD-FEARIN' AMERICANS--you get the idea. At no point is it necessary for a shred of evidence to present itself that blue IS better than green--the tightly-held opinion is enough.

Another sad dynamic (sad, for the whole human race) is that we primates looooooooove to divide ourselves into "ingroups" and "outgroups". Not only that, but we subdivide--even if a group is deemed by its members to be homogenous, all too soon it will divide itself according to some kind of non-shared criterion or characteristic. So we hold an opinion, and we:

1. Look under the couch cushions, and in the back of the closet, if necessary, for "evidence" that confirms that opinion.
2. Proclaim loudly to all and sundry that we HOLD THIS OPINION. And the fact that we hold it automatically adds to that opinion's value to us.
3. We look for people who disagree with that opinion, and then classify those people as "the others" (even if we formerly thought of those people as "us").

Now, this happens in real-world human society, as well as in its bastardized simulacrum, the internet. In face-to-face interactions, at least, we learn to modify our vehemence, and act with a modicum of politeness, for safety's sake if nothing else. But on the internet, there are no negative consequences--no social sanctions--to just going ahead and swinging away, so many people do exactly that. As a result, you get an environment that is like a major city during a blackout, riots, or other anarchy--most people behave responsibly, but many others are looting the local appliance store, or getting into gunbattles.

I hasten to add that I'm as subject to this effect as anyone else, so I'm not criticizing from the heights of an ivory tower. I'm just saying that the internet naturally exacerbates existing tendencies toward hostility and conflict. And the only policing available is that imposed by the group, which is often ineffective and/or unevenly applied.

Quote: mkl654321

There are a lot of stressors, here AND in "real life", that contribute to disagreements. One of these is "confirmation bias", where we tend to ignore "information" that casts doubt on our opinions/beliefs, while we enthusiastically embrace that information that seems to validate those opinions. Another is the tendency to fiercely defend a position SIMPLY BECAUSE ONE HAS CHOSEN THAT POSITION. Blue is better than green? Darn tootin'! And I KNOW blue is by far the superior color. My daddy voted Blue, and so did my grandpappy, and by golly BLUE IS THE ONLY DECENT COLOR FOR GOD-FEARIN' AMERICANS--you get the idea. At no point is it necessary for a shred of evidence to present itself that blue IS better than green--the tightly-held opinion is enough.

Quote: mkl654321

I hasten to add that I'm as subject to this effect as anyone else, so I'm not criticizing from the heights of an ivory tower. I'm just saying that the internet naturally exacerbates existing tendencies toward hostility and conflict. And the only policing available is that imposed by the group, which is often ineffective and/or unevenly applied.

Wow. I find a clarity in these statements that relieves me.

If it's helpful to see what this looks like to at least me and maybe other users of the forum, here's an example.

You don't believe there's a god, which is fine. However, you assign all sorts of ignorance and bad motive to people who are open to the existence of a god (like me) and people who do believe in a god (like, say, Sarah Palin).

In my personal case, you have incorrectly jumped to the conclusion that I positively believe a god exists, when, if you could go back over everything I've written, I've never given reason to think that.

Further, you have taken this wrong assumption and used it to assign terrible motives to me as to why I disagree with you on some points. (Not only is that dead wrong, but it promotes your own ignorance because it gives you a reason to not be ready to defend your position.)

I mention these things only to see if there's been a jump from the philosophical clarity you give above to its practical application.

So ... I'm asking directly ... do you still assign ignorance and bad motive to all believers in a god, or do you now admit that reasonable, thinking people can have reasonable, thinking reasons for believing in a god, or is there another option that I'm not thinking of?

And, do you still falsely assign motive to those people as to why they disagree with you, or do you believe that thinking, reasonable people can disagree with you without motive, or is there another option that I'm not thinking of?

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

So ... I'm asking directly ... do you still assign ignorance and bad motive to all believers in a god, or do you now admit that reasonable, thinking people can have reasonable, thinking reasons for believing in a god, or is there another option that I'm not thinking of?

And, do you still falsely assign motive to those people as to why they disagree with you, or do you believe that thinking, reasonable people can disagree with you without motive, or is there another option that I'm not thinking of?

You will not recieve any worthwhile answer from MKL. He is unable to respond to reason or logic. I have occasionally toyed with him since his responses are so predictable that it was fun to tweak him. He really believes that anyone that disagrees with his point of view, on virtually any subject, is beneath him. I've stopped reading his posts and simply have him blocked. I have found that I am enjoying this forum again.

Will to Power.

Nietzsche nicely argued that every creature, particularly humans, seek the increase in their own power. This drive fuels every action you take in life. Some people truly believe knowledge is power, and this ties in nicely with the argument that Maturity is required for productive discussion. For many others, power is winning, moral superiority, a short-term gain in adrenaline, serotonin or other pleasing chemicals when you taunt or conquer your victim.

Having a productive discussion where you learn you might be wrong, or at least are exposed to the many grays in life, is not a very power-inducing experience for most people. Instead, it introduces more uncertainty and complexity into our lives. Some people (mature people?) live for this; I suggest most people don't.

The degeneration of many discussions is the result of trying to increase or maintain power over our own lives (beliefs, happiness, control over perceived reality, etc.)

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

So ... I'm asking directly ... do you still assign ignorance and bad motive to all believers in a god, or do you now admit that reasonable, thinking people can have reasonable, thinking reasons for believing in a god, or is there another option that I'm not thinking of?

And, do you still falsely assign motive to those people as to why they disagree with you, or do you believe that thinking, reasonable people can disagree with you without motive, or is there another option that I'm not thinking of?

I'll answer your direct questions directly:

I never did assign either "ignorance" or "bad motives" to believers. Those are your words, not mine. I did, and do, say that belief in a god or gods is irrational. "Reasonable, thinking people" embrace various and sundry irrational and even ridiculous beliefs, opinions, attitudes, etc. ALL THE TIME. So can such people have "reasonable, thinking reasons" for their religious beliefs? No. Believing in something that doesn't exist, particularly in the complete and total absence of evidence for that thing's existence, is neither reasonable nor "thinking"--it is the product of a much more basic mental process than that. What happens THEN--as I said--is that the thinking processes are engaged to try to validate or justify that belief. But the genesis of that belief is NOT in the cerebral cortex. So do I "admit" that belief in a god or gods is "thinking" or "reasonable"? No...because it is neither. And it still would be unthinking and irrational even if I thought the direct opposite.

Your second question is likewise based on something I never said. People don't need a "motive" to agree or disagree with me or with anyone else (unless they're people like JerryLogan). They simply hold one opinion; you or I hold another. I never "falsely assigned" motive to "those who disagree with" me; once again, your words, not mine. So of course people can disagree with me for no more or less reason than that they disagree with me. The insinuation contained in your question is kind of insulting, and since it was kind of a stupid question to boot, you may as well have simply tendered the insult without hiding it behind a question. The "do you still beat your wife" question is a rhetorical trick as old as the hills.

I don't assign any particulary negative "motive" to believers; after all, belief in deities is something pretty much universal to humanity, as are the cognitive flaws that lead to it. We run flawed software on a compromised mainframe--it's no wonder that we produce GIGO results like religious belief. Do I blame humanity for its built-in tendency toward irrationality? No. For its embracing irrationality today, in an era where reason should predominate? Yes. In today's world, we SHOULD be growing out of our beliefs in God and gods and fairies and witches and elves and ghosts. "Should" being the operative word.

I view your being "open to the existence of a God" as somewhere in the middle ground between belief and rationality, in that you view something that is vanishingly improbable as being more possible than that. That's fine. But if you were purely rational is this aspect, you would not view the existence of God as a practical possibility. Given that you are a thinking person, you must indeed have some "motive" to bypass your normal logical processes; if you were dispassionate about the issue, you would say, "There almost certainly is no God". That motive can be good, bad, or indifferent; I don't know and don't care. For what it's worth, I do think that most people's motives for making themselves believe in God are basically good.

Quote: dwheatley

Will to Power.

Nietzsche nicely argued that every creature, particularly humans, seek the increase in their own power. This drive fuels every action you take in life. Some people truly believe knowledge is power, and this ties in nicely with the argument that Maturity is required for productive discussion. For many others, power is winning, moral superiority, a short-term gain in adrenaline, serotonin or other pleasing chemicals when you taunt or conquer your victim.

Having a productive discussion where you learn you might be wrong, or at least are exposed to the many grays in life, is not a very power-inducing experience for most people. Instead, it introduces more uncertainty and complexity into our lives. Some people (mature people?) live for this; I suggest most people don't.

The degeneration of many discussions is the result of trying to increase or maintain power over our own lives (beliefs, happiness, control over perceived reality, etc.)

Thank you all for giving some reponses, I was beginning to think I had posted a bunk idea :). Forgive me MathEx and Marie, but I'm skipping over your replies as they were mostly internet based. I didn't intend this topic to be considered with the internet in mind and wish I could have left it and this forum out of it entirely. I simply couldn't think of a cultural example with which most of us would be familiar with and used the forum to fill the void. The internet is what it is, and I expect nothing from it. If I dont like it, I can turn it off, and it's effect on me would henceforth be gone. Would I prefer most of the internet to be more constructive? Why, sure. But my wishes mean absolutely nothing, and if the internet, the forum, or anything of this nature became intolerable to me to the extent that I could no longer participate, the base impact on my life would be negligible. It's enterainment after all, not, say, governmental policies that could severely impact my life.

MKL and dwheat, you hit on more of what I was going for, but not quite on the bullseye...

MKL, I dig your concept of 'beliefs' and 'groups', and I think one is a product of the other. All people, including myself, form beliefs and we tend to seek out others who share our beliefs (group up) to give it more power, to make sure they're not lost in the mayhem of life. Whether they have a basis in fact or are a literal translation of belief I'm not sure matters. Because it's not the issue of people 'grouping' (which is ok), or having disagreeing views (which I think is very important) that I have trouble with. It's the fact that.... I don't have hard numbers but it seems to happen more and more....people are totally SHUTTING OUT anything that doesn't jive to exactly what their beliefs or opinions are. And 'shutting out' seems to be the the lightest form of ignorance. Seems lately, and I'm talking in real life, the norm calls for a full on assault of the dissenting viewpoint, dissolving into a full on assault of the PERSON giving the dissenting viewpoints, and soon you're wishing that the offensive, rude, and teribbly counter-productive 'shutting out' would return, because as bad as it is, it beats anything you're seeing lately. Why people hold beliefs and why they group up wasn't exactly my question, it's why do things deteriorate so rapidly when opposing groups confront one another, which leads to dwheat's response...

The Power. This, too, I understand. Maybe this isn't the specific example you had in mind, but for me sports fits. Everyone has a favorite team and groups with similar fans, and when 'you' win, it is indeed powerful. You do get the biological reward of adrenaline, seratonin, etc. In some weird way, it validates you as a person. It just feels damn good to be a winner. Likewise, you could apply the same concept to other 'victories', be they religious coversations, legislative debates, etc and so forth. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I'm appalled that a bunch of drunk Canadiens fans would rub it in the Sabres fans face when they come to town and skunk the home team because that is uncivil and not productive. My gripe is about things of a more serious nature. Politics is a great example, I think. Let's look at our government. Our officials overflow with power, at least relative to their peers or Joe Sunday sipping coffee down at the shop. Whether its the mayor of your town, the Governor of your state, or the President of your country, these people hold power higher than a great many of those who surround them. Yet look at them. They come in, left / right, liberal / conservative, Rep / Dem, whatever, and rather than do what I believe their purpose is (work for the people, or at least for the country) they engage in a figurative battle to the death with the other side. Not one position dares give leeway to the other lest, I dunno, their manhood be decried or some such nonsense. And what do we hear in the news, in the paper, online, etc? Dems vs Rep, conserv vs lib, on and on with each side 'gaining' power or 'losing' control. And throughout all this, what gets accomplished? What great moment, what positive outcome, has come from this? When, seriously, when was the last time you heard some GOOD news amidst this constant bickering? Me, I cant remember not a one. This, dwheat, is where your IMO pretty good reply doesn't jive. These people already have power, more than most would see in their life. I assume that as adults, that as professionals, that as decent human beings, they would handle themselves with the maturity spoken of earlier. Yet I fail to see it on every given occassion. I personally think that under all the grandstanding, under the facade of party lines, under all the bullshit, that a great many of these people are good hearted, well educated, and wish to do a good job. That they COULD do a good job. That any given group of current or past Presidents / Congressman / Governors / etc could be or could have been known as the single greatest governing body in the history of the US and enabled untold amounts of productivity if they could just put their selfish, party-serving, self-serving differences aside and work with and learn from each other. THIS is the kind of stuff I was talking about. Our Nation continues to sink into trillions of dollars in debt, our productivity continues to be shipped overseas, our infrastructure continues to age faster than it's maintained, my home state of NY continues to shut down due to governmental ineptitude, yet everyone's too busy holding their own position in this heirarchy of beliefs to take a step in any direction towards a solution.

Dammit, got off on a rant. Politics wasn't my whole point, but it is one of them. Whatever party you subscribe to, they most likely have some good, some great, some poor and some bad decisions regarding issues that require attention. Why can't you cull the good from one, some from the other, and come to some sort of agreement for the betterment of us all? Because of 'parties'? Because of 'groups'? Because you can't possibly fathom admitting you may have been *gasp!* wrong about something? I don't get it. Why would someone rather dwell in his own excrement than bathe in the house of the enemy? Seems asinine to this guy.

Not to attempt in setting a record for longest, most meandering post ever, but I've had experience in this topic which leads me to believe I have a point. My experience was religion, of which I am a non-believer. In my younger days, I would become incensed at the mere thought of it. I created my own maddness as a result and fell farther and farther down every time I went to battle on the subject. I would listen (and stilll do to this day) to Christian talk radio just to learn scripture and hear some of the more ridiculous claims to use as ammo in future arguements. And anytime I'd engage in one, I'd usually end up 'winning', as 'believers' often lack the facts, just by the very definition of the word. However, as I continued to listen throughout the years, I began to change. Most notably, I became a father. That plus age and maturity calmed the beast within, and I just started listening. At some point along the way, I realized none of it F'ing mattered. Billy Bible's beliefs affect me not, nor do mine affect him, so why all the fuss? Why so concerned with 'the win'. Once I lost that NEED to win, I was able to HEAR what was being said, and dammit, I learned a HELL of a lot about myself by doing so. Today, I am no more near believing in religion as I was in any other point in my life, however I have gained some great aspects of my person from those very shows, which is why I still listen to them. I have also gained what I consider to be the one of the greatest gifts I have ever received, which is that you can grow and learn from something or someone with whom you disagree with completely, and said growing and learning comes at no price to who you are whatsoever. Since the time I began to realize this and began encouraging it, my life has been on a rocket's vector upward. From family and friend relationships, physical health, mental health and aw yeah, my wages earned, my life has improved across the board. And while I no longer get that 'feeling of power' when I trounce someone in a discussion and tear their stance to shreds, the 'power' I ACTUALLY have is at an all time high. Due to this experience (and the purpose of this thread topic) I just don't understand how the 'pain' of admitting that your stance might be flawed could possibly outweigh what could be life changing knowledge, or at the very worst, something to think about for the next few hours / days.

I think religions arose as answer to how we got here. But, if a god created us, who created god? Where does space end and what comes after that? I personally don't care to dwell on any of that.