The root of all humans.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : History & Theory of Psychology : One Thread

I was thinking about how humans act and the reasons behind thier actions and i came to one conclusion.

That every human does what is best for themselves.

"Does" only applys to the present and not the future and the past. so that being stated says that is doesn't have to mean it was the best choice after it was made. So it dont mean that we will do the best or have done the best.

Now the question is: Do you agree? If not please explain.

-- Enos Nicholas (enos_nick@hotmail.com), October 27, 2002

Answers

Unfortunately, this idea tends to have little or no content because people do not specifcy *in advacne* what they mean by "best". As a result it rapidly descends into circularity because, when a person does something unexpected (i.e., something that does not appear to be "best" under normal understandings of the term), rather than conceding that the "theory" (such as it is) has been refuted, its advocates often start seaching around for increasingly bizarre interpretations of the unexpected behavior under which it might still be regarded as having been "best" is some odd way.

Perhaps more directly, there is a lot of evidence that people do not (indeed, cannot) literally optimize all their behavior -- they don't have all the necessary information, and even when they do they don't have the sheer "computing" power necessary to pick the single best course among the infinitely many alternatives. As a result, people usually "satisfice" their behavior -- selecting the better of the alternatives that are immediately apparent. See Herbert Simon's work on this idea.

-- Christopher Green (christo@yorku.ca), October 27, 2002.


Well what i mean by "best" is that the action to which the human does is based on the choices that the human sees when the action is taking place. Wheather they were thinking for less then a second or 2 hours they will choose what they feel is the best choice of the possible choices that they can think of. In some situations the best choice may not actually have a good outcome. But it was a choice that was less painful then the rest of the choices.

-- Enos Nicholas (enos_nick@hotmail.com), October 27, 2002.

Enos, could we call your theory a "hedonic theory of choice", meaning that at least reflective choice is mainly guided by whether pleasurable or unpleasurable emotions accompany the consideration of alternatives? This theory seems to have some merit, but I wonder if additional layers of explanation of choice might be useful. For example, evolutionary psychologists might add that choices are influenced by consequences that our ancestor experienced (via gene selection and developmental preprogramming of brain structures or behavioral tendencies). Social psychologists might refer to the influence of other people and learning. Cognitive psychologists might emphasize the importance of metacognition (i.e., thinking about thinking, which is often involved in choice) and the role of unconscious or less conscious influences. There are also rapid reflex-like decisions/responces (many of which might also have strong emotional components) that need to be explained. Therefore, while you make an interesting point that personal emotion usually plays a vital role in choice or responding (and may even usually dominate), we may want to go farther into understanding our deciding, choosing, and responding. You might also want to look at the weird effects of damage to emotional areas of the brain on choice and behavior.

-- Paul R. Kleinginna (prklein@gsvms2.cc.gasou.edu), October 30, 2002.

I personally dont know much about the genes, and how they could be an influence in our personal choices.

what we learn from other people and what we believe to be a realiable source can have a big influence on what we choose to do. But we may be put in a situation where our learnings conflict with our personal feelings about what is the best choice.

about unconscious or less-conscious influences, who we are is already in us. Our true feelings may sometimes be hidden from those close to us. So even though a choice is done without much awareness or thought they would not have done it if they didnt see any good in the momment that action took place.

rapid reflex-like decisions/responces, not quite sure what this means. is it like thinking for less then a second? well i think all the examples are a part of what im trying to explain.

It basicly depends on our "Self" (how we think from the things we learned mixed with our values). Like if success is higher then love, then one would rather go to a last minute meeting with thier boss for a discussion for a promotion then going to a nicely planned anniversy dinner.

-- Enos Nicholas (enos_nick@hotmail.com), October 30, 2002.


An example of unconscious reflexive emotional responses, might be when we see a snake on the path, there are rapid unconscious brain circuits (also conscious circuits that are slower) that can initiate stopping or jumping before the information gets to the part of the brain that consciously identifies the stimulus as a snake! I think this example comes from Joseph LeDoux's "The Emotional Brain" and area of the brain that can sometimes initiate rapid unconscious responses is the amygdala. My main point is not that the core of your theory is wrong, but that we are likely to find many interesting complexities to human emotion, motivation, and thought. Besides the evolutionary complexity, I can think of two others: 1. we sometimes deny, distort or try not to think much about our motives (e.g., goals, values, etc.) 2. particular activites that we frequently engage in, often seems like they are driven by a single motive, when typically repeated activites are intitated or sustained by many internal motives and external incentives. I hope these educated guesses of mine help. Keep up the good work.

-- Paul R. Kleinginna (prklein@gsvms2.cc.gasou.edu), November 01, 2002.


Even though we jump or stop before the information gets to the part of the brain where we consciously identify the stimulus as a snake. We still programmed our unconscious mind that a snake means danger and that we should stay away from danger. Although we may not identify the snake I'm sure that we identify the shape. We do not necessarily have to be in danger to be a scared of danger. jumping from what seems to be a snake is a quick choice possibly the only choice one can have at the moment that choice was made. Its a choice done for oneself to keep oneself away from danger.

Those who try to distort, deny or try not to think much about their motives have a higher chance of not being successful at what they are trying to do. Maybe they feel if they deny their motive it will ease them because if they fail they will not be as hurt as the person who failed with a motive.

When someone does what is best for oneself that person makes his/her choice for many reasons. All depends where his/her state of mind is at in the present moment. Wheather we feel one motive is good enough or that we have to create motives to be motivated enough to continue a certian activity.

hopefully i understodd what you were saying correctly. And thanks for the help to look deeper into what im trying to say.

-- Enos Nicholas (enos_nick@hotmail.com), November 04, 2002.


Hi Enos, I think you should look at Socrates and Aristotle's take on your question, and after that you will have this question pretty well boxed. I think Socrates thought that a person who knew right would naturally do right. I don't think Aristotle agreed. Also consider what St. Paul said about sin. But Socrates and Aristotle, they kind of out lined the discussion from both sides and I don't think it has been improved on. I think you will find Aristotle's arguement in his ethics. Now of course for modern times and neurophysiology, I assume you have considered random acts of behavior from a Darwinian view - which of course takes in adaptive responses to a specific environment. And naturally that would imply no moralizing is necessary. This of course puts you in the delima which is the adaptive response is the right thing to do if you survive, on the other hand it was a tragic mistake for the deadly response. Leaves you with kind of a tautology unfortunately. I also assumed you have applied the Law of Error to you considerations of responces. Best of Luck, David

-- david clark (doclark@yorku.ca), November 07, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ