Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2019-20/Interdisciplinary Depictions of Human Nature

Comments transcribed from the initial Google Docs:

I have been doing some thinking and I believe we should work on this from the Truth perspective, or maybe History.

Unless we have a clear vision of what we want to do with Power - in which case I'd be very happy to do so

I have done some reading and there seems to be a recent questioning of the truth concerning the 'killer ape' myth surrounding human nature. Furthermore, we could look at the impact of cultural sets of beliefs (culture, religion, 'original sin', how 'westernized' the vision of human nature is) that might impact how people think of human nature/ how scientific research has been conducted?

We might also want to take a look at what scientific data can bring to the debate ( and the different uses of that data: people have used it differently to support their thesis). Finally, I have read that archeological interpretations vary greatly concerning the origins of war/ when humans first started killing - there is little consensus.

All those points have led me to think we could explore the Truth issue, but of course, it's just an idea. (I didn't research the philosophy strand)

--Elisa 14:16 16 nov.


 * I agree. Maybe at the end of our wiki page, we could discuss the possibility of looking at this issue from an interdisciplinary perspective since each disciplinary approach (philosophical and sociological studies may be influenced by ideologies, psychology uses questionable methodologies, etc) is inadequate to show the whole picture.

--Yujin Lu 09:34 17 nov.

I also agree, particularly since it avoids the risk of putting the focus in the wrong place as we might have done with power. The risk of talking about the reasons for the power divide instead of the discussion of the power divide would have been large. With truth though, I think it is just going to be important not to stray too close to a discussion of power which might arise in any particular areas we are talking about. To avoid this we will want to focus on the individual subjects and their conclusions before bringing the effects of these different methods of study on truth at the end. I would imagine we wouldn't want to compare specific cases of human nature in history as that might lead to a loss of focus on the issue we are investigating. - Henry Adams

ATK Seminar 21 nov. Repartition of roles: Philosophy/ Religion - Henry Psychology/Sociology - Yujin Biology/ Impacts of Culture on scientific research- Elisa --Elisa1801 (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Psychology-- by Yujin Lu 2019/11/24

P''sychological studies which state human infants have the inclination to act altruistically:

1. (Warneken, 2006) Altruistic Helping in Human Infants and Young Chimpanzees

Method: presenting 18-month-old infants and young chimpanzees with 10 different situations in which an adult was having difficulties in achieving a goal

Result: infants and chimpanzees helped others achieve their goals.

Conclusion: the common ancestor to chimpanzees and humans already possessed some tendency to help before humans began down their unique path of hypercooperativeness.

2. (Hamlin, Wynn, Bloom, 2007) Social evaluation by preverbal infants Method: Helping & Hindering Experiment

Result: 6-mo-old and 10-mo-old infants prefer an individual who helps others to one who hinders another, and prefer a neutral individual to a hindering individual

Conclusion: preverbal infants assess individuals based on their actions towards others, and this capacity may serve as the foundation for moral thought and action.

3. (Warneken etc, 2007) Spontaneous Altruism by Chimpanzees and Young Children

Result: Both chimpanzees and human infants helped altruistically.

Conclusion: The roots of human altruism may reach as far back as the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Human culture groups cultivated rather than implanted the propensity to act altruistically.

Psychological studies which demonstrate that early altruism of human beings is limited:

(Wynn, Bloom, Jordan, Marshall, Sheskin, 2018) Not Noble Savages After All: Limits to Early Altruism

Result: Infants and young children favor those who have been kind to them in the past and favor familiar individuals over strangers. They hold strong biases for in-group over out-group members and for themselves over others, and more selfish than older children and adults.

Conclusion: Much of what is most impressive about adult morality arises not through inborn capacities but through a fraught developmental process that involves exposure to culture and the exercise of rationality.

Psychological studies which criticize the studies mentioned above:

(Carpendale, Kettner, Audet, 2015) On the Nature of Toddlers' Helping: Helping or Interest in Others' Activity?

psychologist's fallacy: the great snare of the psychologist is the confusion of his own standpoint with that of the mental fact about which he is making Claim: Children may just want to participate in adults' activities instead of helping.

Conclusion: Toddlers' helping may be the typical outcome of the human developmental system, a system that results in human social and cognitive abilities.''

Philosophy - Henry

Vague plan of action -
 * 1) firstly a definition of what we are referring to by human nature is clearly necessary

"Human nature is a bundle of characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting, which humans are said to have naturally.[1][2][3][4] The term is often regarded as capturing what it is to be human, or the essence of humanity. The term is controversial because it is disputed whether or not such an essence exists. Arguments about human nature have been a mainstay of philosophy for centuries and the concept continues to provoke lively philosophical debate.[5][6][7] The concept also continues to play a role in science, with neuroscientists, psychologists and social scientists sometimes claiming that their results have yielded insight into human nature.[8][9][10][11] Human nature is traditionally contrasted with characteristics that vary among humans, such as characteristics associated with specific cultures. Debates about human nature are related to, although not the same as, debates about the comparative importance of genes and environment in development ("nature versus nurture")." This is the wikipedia introduction to the Human Nature page. I will use the links and references to build a definition of human nature from the sources, but wanted to make reference to where I found the sources.


 * 1) Summary of some of the major strands of philosophical thinking (could possibly phrase as an evolution of thinking). I must be careful not to go into excessive detail and provide most of the detail and evidence for each point of view in the form of sources and links.
 * 2) Discussion on the methods of analysis and evidence getting used in Philosophy to be later compared and contrasted to the other subjects in context of the conclusions come to in each subject. (order of this and summary could be switched depending on which gives better context to the other).
 * 3) Maybe make tiny references on the effects that differing opinions on Human Nature have - eg. Marx using it as a building block for his communist ideologies. (Elisa and Yujin please advise whether you think this is relevant or not) - Henry (28/11/2019) This will just sidetrack me and detract from our focus so I will not be investigating this further

Philosophy often comes from viewpoint of 'to what extent is a state needed' ie. It is a necessary premise for large proportions of political philosophy which could possibly suggest that larger intuitions on the conclusion of the latter argument may play a significant role in the description of the premise - in this case being human nature.

There is also the influence of pre-existing beliefs such as Hobbes' christianity - original sin. Hobbes' opinion lies at the heart of both Economics (homo economicus) and Evolutionary Biology.

Then contrast this to Confucian Philosophy, as it has totally different influences (greatly reduced Greek tradition, no christian influence) and comes to totally different solution.

Ideas being accepted or in public consciousness afterwards, again resulting in a predisposition towards a solution.

Observed behaviour vs experience - to what extent would each influence a philosopher and to what extent are they an accurate basis to make a philosophical argument?''

Sociology-- by Yujin Lu 2019/11/24

''1.Sociology textbooks: social science does not need a theory of human nature.

2.Disputes between Sociology and evolutionary psychology

3.Yet, sociologists make assumptions about human nature

Definition of human nature in sociology: human nature consists of drives and capacities common to humans. All elements of human nature are profoundly shaped by culture (what people want is shaped by society). The assumption of most sociological writing: there is no basic desire to harm other people. The capacity for anger and violent aggression is considered to be a tool of human nature, enabling people to pursue a range of desires through conflict. Particular patriarchial constructions of masculinity--> men enjoy violence. the dominant theme of the sociology textbooks: reject theories of human nature as biology. presocial baby vs. the socialized infant violent conflict: sociology-->historical/ social context evolutionary psychology--> biologically determined  yet the sociological explanation makes assumptions about human nature which sociologists take for granted (02/12/2019 Yujin)

'' Group Meeting Student Centre From our discussion: - Sociology has less empirical elements -> what is the impact on truth? - The focus has to be on the methodology of disciplines - Is there a different definition of human nature between disciplines? If yes, how might that impact the conclusions drawn by each field? --Elisa1801 (discuss • contribs) 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC) 28/11/2019

Religious view on human nature -> Philosophy -> Impact on scientific research Cultural/ Historical context -> Impact on scientific research

Look at a smaller number of closely related fields, while including things like religion and war in the discussion rather than discussing the religious influences on the discussion as a separate section? - Henry (28/11/2019)

Research and Elaboration of the Structure of the Wikibook Originally drafted on Powerpoint, to be discussed with the group:

I- The challenge of the cultural bias

A) The origins: Religion A view of human nature not based on scientific research Sahlins (2008:52) « Original Sin pretty much sealed the deal … Endless desires for the flesh would lead to endless war: within men, between men, and with Nature. »

B) An occidental storyline 1) Philosophy How Hobbesian view of human nature has impacted occidental thought 2) The challenge of achieving scientific objectivity i.e. Evolutionary psychology p347 “Using Western personality as a baseline for describing human nature generally represents an ethnocentric and ignorant viewpoint that misrepresents the data”

II-Conflicting views about human nature

A) An evolved predisposition for killing (genetic) Vs. A social construct, influenced by the environment

B) Divergences in Research Methods -     Empirical vs. Social sciences -> example of anthropology and the problem of claims about human nature not based on data(I.e. ethnographic sources. Subjective) -    Misuse of data -     New views about the origins of war Supported by archaeological facts, primatology … Primatology: comparing animal behaviour to humans: each species should be studied in its own right vs. the value of a broad spectrum basis of comparison for gaining an understanding of evolutionary trends (p. 13) Species typical or species atypical and how that goes against our preconceptions.

III- The Importance of the Truth – The Societal Implications of the stance taken about human nature

What are the implications of human nature on our striving for progress?

Depending on the dominant view, discourse about human nature can be used to propagate fear (p.5), as a justification for wars …

A bias among scholars, politicians, and more generally society to talk more about war than about peace -> greater focus on what disrupts our daily life New views within academia could allow the development of an alternative vision: the vision of a new socio-political system without war (Hand, 2010) A more hopeful statement about human nature

--Elisa1801 (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

We need to change the title to link it more closely to violence otherwise the topic is too vast --Elisa1801 (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Group Meeting BASc Common Room - 4/12/19 Wikibook Writing We roughly divided each section Henry - cultural bias section Yujin - Nature vs. Nurture Elisa - Emerging interdisciplinary views of human nature We will write the last part together --Elisa1801 (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Henry - note to self - adjust the first section to include reactions to the received truths using similar areas of discussion

Group Meeting at the Science Library We went over our parts, reformulating ideas as to condense as much information as possible. For the purpose of working simultaneously, we did this on Google Docs. We added pictures and reformulated the titles to make them more explicit. We also tried to change our title yet this created a new Wikibook chapter. The third part still needs some work, as well as a general overview to make sure the sections flow and are coherent. --Elisa1801 (discuss • contribs) 23:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Individual editing and final draft Some ideas were added although the overall structure was not majorly altered Interlinks to other Wikipedia pages were also added.

NOTE: When changing the title of the chapter, a new page was created that did not include our editing history - We therefore decided to keep the initial title and page. The group had agreed to rename the Wikibook Chapter: "Interdisciplinary approaches to Violence in Human Nature "