Ah, I can see how that reads. So, short answer: I agree, but with the caveat that that simple truth can be misrepresented.
Of course, there are things that are inherent in “our nature”. You mention speech, which is a great example - the ability of language and being adapted to being born into a complex system of language is one of the main reasons why I think humanity is acting so much within a material and historical context - more so than more intuitively acting animals adapted to a biome.
It is indeed my thesis, that besides some smaller things, “human nature” is being adapted to “culture”, adapted to dialectically interacting with reality around us, and creating a new context that then influences us again. We aren’t specialised to one biome any more, for example, or one circumstance in climate, but naturally inclined to change ourselves and our surroundings. And I agree, that we are indeed specialised for complex social organisation, too.
My issue comes there, where very specific behaviours or systems are presented as human nature, where I would claim, they are better explained as “how something within human nature is filtered through its historical context.” Think of how people may say “private property” is human nature. Or “racism” is human nature. No, both are dynamics of something within human nature in a very specific context.
A windshield wiper doesn’t cook eggs.
True, but for humanity specifically, it can be damn hard to clearly define if we are a windshield wiper, an egg-cooker, or whatever. Because everything we study about our nature, will always appear to us filtered through the surrounding context. So it is only through hard work and building up theories to ever be falsified again, that we come closer to the essentials. (Like language, social organisation of high complexity, etc.)
This study, and others like it, would be to my mind the right way to go about finding out what the baseline is for humans.
Look to the great apes, see what great apes do - because we are great apes. Old World monkeys would provide clues as well. We’re absolutely going to be somewhat different, but that’s where research comes in.
We don’t have to guess.
PS. I know I was way out of my depth here. I really appreciate you taking the time to chat with me. It’s always nice to talk to somebody brainy.
Thanks for the study, I only glossed over it, but it does indeed fit with the view I fundamentally have there as well. My own personal, more philosophical speculation added on top being, that the observed guilt and resentment, for example, are - again, in my own opinion, not stated as fact - intertwined with the foundation of language and being born into language. Interesting here, I think, is that children from traumatic upbringings without language acquisition, so-called “feral” children, do lack this aspect of mutual/joint commitment, as far as I know. But I am now starting to get out of my field of obsessive interest/expertise, myself.
Looking at behaviour of children in early childhood especially, can be very useful for some fundamentals, and using other Great Apes as a reference, can help a lot, too. But the older the observed humans get, the harder I think it is to use the observation, and studies have to be very carefully crafted. But I would agree, that it is part of the toolbox, as well as anthropological studies that can then be cross-referenced, and just because everything is always within a context, does not mean absolutely no things can be deduced from observations. (I realise now I made a mistake when I think I earlier said “basically impossible”, when really it’s just amazingly hard, and possible only for very general things).
PS. I know I was way out of my depth here. I really appreciate you taking the time to chat with me. It’s always nice to talk to somebody brainy.
Thank you, and you’re welcome. In the end, I am also just another ND person on the internet, currently hyper-talkative about a special interest. So I don’t know how much “brainy” is really fitting, I always think it might be too positive of a description - but I guess I can’t escape that I am indeed prone to geeking out about the Humanities at times without a proper filter. That has definitely caused me to make mistakes before, too, so you shouldn’t take my word where what I say is in clear contradiction with facts.
Ah, I can see how that reads. So, short answer: I agree, but with the caveat that that simple truth can be misrepresented.
Of course, there are things that are inherent in “our nature”. You mention speech, which is a great example - the ability of language and being adapted to being born into a complex system of language is one of the main reasons why I think humanity is acting so much within a material and historical context - more so than more intuitively acting animals adapted to a biome.
It is indeed my thesis, that besides some smaller things, “human nature” is being adapted to “culture”, adapted to dialectically interacting with reality around us, and creating a new context that then influences us again. We aren’t specialised to one biome any more, for example, or one circumstance in climate, but naturally inclined to change ourselves and our surroundings. And I agree, that we are indeed specialised for complex social organisation, too.
My issue comes there, where very specific behaviours or systems are presented as human nature, where I would claim, they are better explained as “how something within human nature is filtered through its historical context.” Think of how people may say “private property” is human nature. Or “racism” is human nature. No, both are dynamics of something within human nature in a very specific context.
True, but for humanity specifically, it can be damn hard to clearly define if we are a windshield wiper, an egg-cooker, or whatever. Because everything we study about our nature, will always appear to us filtered through the surrounding context. So it is only through hard work and building up theories to ever be falsified again, that we come closer to the essentials. (Like language, social organisation of high complexity, etc.)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-023-09464-0
This study, and others like it, would be to my mind the right way to go about finding out what the baseline is for humans.
Look to the great apes, see what great apes do - because we are great apes. Old World monkeys would provide clues as well. We’re absolutely going to be somewhat different, but that’s where research comes in.
We don’t have to guess.
PS. I know I was way out of my depth here. I really appreciate you taking the time to chat with me. It’s always nice to talk to somebody brainy.
Thanks for the study, I only glossed over it, but it does indeed fit with the view I fundamentally have there as well. My own personal, more philosophical speculation added on top being, that the observed guilt and resentment, for example, are - again, in my own opinion, not stated as fact - intertwined with the foundation of language and being born into language. Interesting here, I think, is that children from traumatic upbringings without language acquisition, so-called “feral” children, do lack this aspect of mutual/joint commitment, as far as I know. But I am now starting to get out of my field of obsessive interest/expertise, myself.
Looking at behaviour of children in early childhood especially, can be very useful for some fundamentals, and using other Great Apes as a reference, can help a lot, too. But the older the observed humans get, the harder I think it is to use the observation, and studies have to be very carefully crafted. But I would agree, that it is part of the toolbox, as well as anthropological studies that can then be cross-referenced, and just because everything is always within a context, does not mean absolutely no things can be deduced from observations. (I realise now I made a mistake when I think I earlier said “basically impossible”, when really it’s just amazingly hard, and possible only for very general things).
Thank you, and you’re welcome. In the end, I am also just another ND person on the internet, currently hyper-talkative about a special interest. So I don’t know how much “brainy” is really fitting, I always think it might be too positive of a description - but I guess I can’t escape that I am indeed prone to geeking out about the Humanities at times without a proper filter. That has definitely caused me to make mistakes before, too, so you shouldn’t take my word where what I say is in clear contradiction with facts.