Is there a unified theory on human?

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

what i mean. like human instinct, is there such thing? i believe there is, but many disagree. so i was wondering if there is a similar belief that's everyone agrees on. Or would my belief make sense to you.

I believe that all humans do what they can to do what is best for oneself, giving the situation and conditions.

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

Answers

Check a dictionary or encyclopedia of psychology for "instinct." This would also be an important topic in a comparative psychology (animal behavior) text. It would to some extent be included in discussions of nature vs nurture. I think you'll find considerable disagreement, but there have been various efforts along the way to come up with exhaustive lists of instincts.

-- Hendrika Vande Kemp (hendrika@earthlink.net), June 01, 2002.

There are undoubrtedly many human "instincts", though that particular term is quite old-fashioned and not used much any more. Have a look at any of the many books on "evolutionary psychology." Dan Dennett's _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_ and Stephen Pinker's _How the Mind Works_ are both quite popular (they are both "trade" books more than serious academic studies, but they will get you started -- follow the reference trail).

-- Christopher Green (cgreen@chass.utoronto.ca), June 02, 2002.

Hi Enos, when you state your belief as "all" people, you put yourself in a tough position to defend, as surely someone will come up with some one person to contradict you. And then postulating "given the situation and conditions" gives so much wiggle room, it seems you can make it fit any situation. I think you will have to consider if truth to you is found in action or in logic.

But have you ever thought of this: if a person had the truth in any situation - if they had total insight in to absolute reality - then would they automatically do the right thing? And if they knew the truth and consciously chose to do the wrong thing - how can you account for that?

I think my reformulation of your question, is one of those questions of the ages. It might be interesting for you to consider the attribution theory with your search.

Good luck, David

-- david clark (doclark@yorku.ca), June 03, 2002.


Instinct is a word that carries much baggage. The philosopher Wittgenstein said that to understand the meaning of a word, look to how it is used. Instinct is (was?) used to indicate a sort-of 'hard- wired' reaction to a given stimuli. Given an attractivve member of the opposite sex (usually) one feels certain arousal: the instinct to mate. The need to interact with others: the instinct to be social. The proble with the concept of instinct is that it is poorly defined, thus it can take on many meanings. The question is there a similar belief everyone agrres on, is likewise not well-defined. What do you mean by 'everyone', all 100% of the human race, most of them, ie:80-90 percent? The belief in a supreme being is held by somewhere around 85 to 95% of all people, across cultures. Does this qualify? Most people belief the sun will rise tomorrow. What specific area (of beliefs) were you interested in?

-- Paul Crossett (pjc55@kvalley.com), June 05, 2002.

well my belief on psychology goes with my belief on pshyics. i believe that all positive electrical charges do what it can do to do what it is best for itself. since humans only have positive electrical charges then my theory should apply. david: "it seems you can make it fit any situation" well yes it does. just because someone did something wrong in our eyes, doesnt mean the person doing it sees it as wrong.

All life is the same. Life does what it can to do what it is best for it self, giving the situation and condition. Humans are life and this applies to humans also. Any action preformed by life is an action for oneself. It doesn't matter what kind of action it is, good, bad, or neutral. Simple things like eating, sleeping, communication and other things we do daily.

Most people automatically see what I'm saying is that all humans are selfish. But a selfish person won't sacrifice oneself to save the life of a loved one. A selfish person won't give their money to some one who is in more need of it. And a selfish person sure won't help people for nothing in return from those people. Selfish is not the term i am using.

If John helped Jane and expected nothing in return, does this mean that action is for oneself? See if John just walked by and ignored Jane he might feel guilt for not helping, that is assuming if john is a kind guy. Even if John didn't want nothing in return and expected no reward from Jane for helping. John would of rewarded himself for what he has done. Simply by avoiding the guilt of walking away or enjoying the fact that someone was in need for John's help.

I believe that all humans are neutral until the situations and conditions arrive. Sure they can pick sides of good and evil. But that does not mean every situation and condition giving to them they will pick only one side. Sure if someone says they are a good person, they may just pick the side of good in most situations and conditions. But to claim that they will pick the side of good every single situation and condition giving to them is just preposterous.

-- Enos Nicholas (enos_nick@hotmail.com), June 05, 2002.



In a solipistic karmic sense, it is incorrect to say that doing anything for anybody else is entirely altruistic, since the argument can be made that all good done for others, without EXPECTING any return, recieves a reduction in "bad" karma, at the least. Thus, anything you do for others, ultimately helps you. What goes around, comes around.

-- Paul Crossett (pjc55@kvalley.com), June 06, 2002.

i'm not saying that everyone is altruistic when they do anything for anyone. What im saying is that no matter what people do, they do for themselves. although human actions and communication are more complex then other mammals, we as humans are still mammals. maybe instinct is not the word when this rule applys to all life and matter. See for every action theres a reason. For every reason theres one ultimate reason. The only thing that seperates humans from animals are humans.

-- Enos Nicholas (enos_nick@hotmail.com), June 07, 2002.

Hi, "is there a unified theory on human?" is a wrong question to ask. The meaningful question to ask is "is there a unified theory on the great apes." There is. See for example the two books: "Human Behavior: The New Synthesis" and "A Dictionary of Human Instincts." -- Nils K. Oeijord

-- Nils K. Oeijord (nils_k_oeijord@hotmail.com), July 06, 2002.

Enos, you're on the right track. Disregard the input of others and pursue religiously your line of reasoning (for your self). The answers you seek lie within you as does the spirit of truth. Because, as you already believe, each does what is best for one's self, it logically follows that the answers they give others would naturally serve their own self. Don't give up on YOUR quest. Don't ever give up and be faithful to your instinctual conscience unto death.

-- Jerry Rappoport (jrappoport@sbcglobal.net), June 17, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ