confused this one with the "short men are oppressed thread" and wrote

and to address lawsuit replies in the bud, i was given a very generous severance package and this was not in the USA#1 so legal options were not really viable

This is the entirety of the argument.

The truism of 'what's good for the group is good for the individual' is far more often true than 'what's good for the individual is good for the group'.

This is borne out in game theory, where barring specific circumstances, in general, co-operation usually works out better than competition. The reasons this tends to be true in both game theory and reality are various and interesting. In terms of defence and attack, a group does better than an individual. We can take down bigger and more prey by joining forces. You could see this purely conceptually in terms of a perimeter being smaller by distance per person when in a group than individually. Group dynamics allow for more specialisation, and the efficicency gains that come with specialisation, so now a small handful of the tribe become excellent at hunting, perhaps even specialising in hunting particular types of game, a small group become excellent at storing and passing on knowledge. The bigger group will do better than the small group on this basis. A group that co-operates rather than competes within itself will be able to devote more resources to expansion and ultimately thrival beyond just survival. Two groups that decide to co-operate rather than compete could benefit from knowledge exchange. For all sorts of reasons, and in all sorts of ways, co-operation trumps competition as a survival strategy.

When a person does not reproduce, the selfish gene idea extends to genes that are similar, i.e. to act in a way that maximises the survival of family members is good enough; this logic extends to the tribe, and ultimately social reproduction to the point that people are willing can be convinced to sacrifice their lives for institutions, or perhaps nations.

Ultimately, we've become the most successful species on the planet in a number of criteria not because of our intelligence - the neanderthals were by accounts more intelligent than us - nor even our adaptability, which plays a part in why we survived the ice age ~50k years ago that wiped out the neanderthals (we did not 'kill them off', but more they died out because they fell into the trap of specialisation in their niche where we stayed more adaptable, but also we ****ed with them to the point where they didn't actually really fully die out) but because we co-operate extremely well with each other.

All of this is to say that where we do have the capacity for selfishness, we are far far far more eusocial and co-operative. All the anthropology bears this out. Where it appears not to, I generally suspect a perversion of the science in order to justify today's apparently far more selfish society. And it's true that we're more selfish as a society than we used to, but even despite that, we are still incredibly co-operative. I don't know how you could look at our cities and think 'that's all just people being selfish'. Maybe it's just not seeing the wood for the trees, not appreciating it because it's become the very air we breathe. The evidence for co-operation is everywhere, in everything.

This is an odd take for someone who's so negative about human nature.

"Are capitalist societies more equitable and stable than socialist societies?" is the question that matters. The rest of this is just a naturalism fallacy that's built on a faulty understanding of nature.

Dude, there is no fallacy. You're trying to imbue my words with gatorade when all I did was drink water.

Has anyone ever mentioned to you that brevity is the soul of wit?

idgaf, you don't deserve my brevity

That it has been around since Thucydides is not proof that it's correct. Christianity has been around a similar time. Many beliefs that turn out to be false are closely held by a lot of people until we find out different.

Found this article:

https://thehistoryoftheamericans.com...rc-of-history/

OK. I wasn't arguing that Thucydides was correct. I was noting that is wasn't obvious that you were correct. And I said explicitly that I didn't find appeals to overly facile descriptions of human nature to be particularly convincing, no matter how optimistic or pessimistic those descriptions might be.

Or, for that matter, "common-sensical".

Was kinda a thing to save you typing, not a thing to save me reading. Pro tip: pretty easy to not read.

ETA: When you have serial infractors whose posts are on average more than a couple of paragraphs, the default position becomes "better be a couple of paragraphs worth of content before I bother with this wall of text". Once you let these people down once or twice, you've lost your public.

Your job when writing is to make your text a pleasure to read, not a chore. A bit like IT - the easier it is to use, the harder it was to build, and all that.

What does facile mean

Look it up. Duh. WTF?

Thanks for the notes. It just so happens I'm both a published writer and editor. So kind of you to want to save me from something I obviously enjoy doing.

If you want notes from me, quit trying to trip me up with empty bullshit. It's not serving you or me. It's not moving the conversation anywhere. It's boring af and there's nowhere you can go and cash the points you think you're winning from me. Try actually engaging with the things I'm saying rather than argue like a 10 year old who's sure of their point of view. Or shut up. I don't care. I'm done engaging with you if you keep on like this.

Dude, "empty bullshit" is kinda my thing, though. It's what I do.

As I said in an earlier post, what constitutes human nature is highly political. It makes sense that selfish people would want to convince everyone else that selfishness is natural, in order to a) feel better about their own selfishness and b) create a more selfish, individualised society which they can then manipulate and c) deflect criticism on the basis that 'everyone does it'. There is a lot of political motivation behind that questionable science that claims that selfishness is innately more present in humans than selflessness. The fact we only got big once we started learning how to communicate effectively and work in groups is evidence enough that we are better at co-operating than surviving, let alone thriving alone. We're not mountain lions. Basically everything good that we do is collaborative. This is self-evident.

If you're proud of that, then you keep doing you, but don't expect me to respond to it going forward.

I'm not entirely convinced that this means what you think it means. For the record, I disagree 100% with the rest of the post, but the quoted was the icing on the cake.

Sure - if you define "politics" as "the capacity for society to govern its members". What else would it be?

You totally the whole point, which is that all people are selfish, by nature.

Are you suggesting that the claims "humans are selfish" and "an individual human can achieve his or her goals better when collaborating with other humans" are mutually exclusive? I don't think they are, and I think both of those statements are true.

Claws out, huh kitten?

Politics can be defined as many things. In this case, I refer to modern libertarian politics that seeks to lay claim to science and convince people that people are naturally more selfish than unselfish.

Yes, I do indeed totally the whole point.

No, if you actually read the words I'm writing, you wouldn't think I'm saying what you're suggesting I'm suggesting.

Is this you bringing the big guns, acting like a big boy now?

Where did all the hostility come from, you two ought to chill out.

I get easily wound up by idiots repeatedly trying to trip me up in obvious and juvenile ways. Sorry.

The only word I object to is "obvious".

I haven't heard any politicians talking about people being selfish by nature.
However, I have read a lot of things indicating that is true, mostly written by academics, who are not generally known for their defense of capitalism.

Could you point to any examples of people advocating for the idea of selfishness in human nature that were likely to be made in bad faith, in order to serve their own political interests?