Talk:Human nature/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gaffe

I seem to have made a terrible gaffe and deleted this article. I have reported myself to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and hope it gets resolved quickly. Tim! 09:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Marx's theory of human nature

Hi - just a heads up, it's my belief that the section on Marx's view of human nature is almost entirely innacurate, and certainly very unclear. I intend to sort this out over the next week or so. I'll be working from books such as Marx's Theory of Human Nature: Refutation of a Legend by Norman Geras, and Karl Marx by Allen Wood. I'm saying now so that people know they can discuss things with me if they have an issue with the changes I'm making. My basic contention is that Marx does affirm a human nature, indeed that he has quite a strong conception of what that involves. Breadandroses 10:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle

I think Aristotle made some of the most famous short statements on human nature and should be given a sub-heading - especially if Marx and the Austrian economists are!--Andrew Lancaster 10:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First sentence

I think that "fundamental" and "substance" should be removed from the definition.

1. All natures are fundamental.

2. Substance is precisely what nature is contrasted to. It is the nature of clay to be sticky. Clay is a substance, and when we refer to its nature we are referring precisely to those things we understand about it which go beyond that. --Andrew Lancaster 10:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore: why are philosophy and theology mentioned only as an afterthought, as if they add secondary or unimportant ideas? Human Nature is primarily a philosophical topic, as the nature of anything is certainly not the object of the empirical sciences. Even the "soft" empirical sciences like psychology and sociology can only add so much to the discussion. The first sentence should probably focus mainly on the fact that this is a philosophical concept about how the nature of human beings differs (or doesn't differ) from the essences of other things, to which helpful considerations might be added by psychology, sociology and in some cases, other empirical sciences. --Billy Duraney 11:16, 28 November 2007

malleability

I think the historical distinction between those who argue there is a human nature should be more clearly contrasted with those who argue, especially in modern times, that human have no fixed nature. Of course mention should indeed be made of the compromise argument, which I think is now orthodox, that human nature is relatively fixed. I think the contrast is a little under-played right now - for example in the definition of rationalism. Rationalism should be slpit into its modern and classical+humanist divisions. Only the moderns are purely materialistic.

Two important references that must therefore be added, and which I think will clarify why EO Wilson can appear so close in the text to Nietzsche, are to Rousseau, who first clearly argued that human nature had changed over time, and Darwin, who did it most famously and set us on our current path.

Lastly, all these gives opportunities to both link to, and distinguish from, the discussion about nature and nurture. This argument happens in the modern context where modernists see human nature as only relatively fixed. The argument becomes one of the relative importance of this fixedness versus the implied malleability.

--Andrew Lancaster 10:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

suggested re-write of the metaphysics and ethics section

DRAFT. Please consider if this is not more accurate and to the point:

Human nature is sometimes conceived as being a permanent problem which must always be argued by human beings. The following is a very simplified set of alternatives, but in practice nuanced positions are common.

1. Rationalism encompasses a set of views that humans are natural phenomena, the causes of which are able to be comprehended by human reason.

• Classical and Humanist philosophical rationalists determined good and evil by appeal to universal human qualities, which they regarded as fixed.

• Modern rationalism has come to regard these human qualities as only relatively fixed. What is fixed in nature are the laws of nature which are behind all cause and effect including human nature. In this sense modern rationalism and modern science are normally called materialist. See also naturalism. Within modernism, two extreme positions are often contrasted, which are usually referred to as the "nature" and "nurture" positions...

• Fixed human nature. Others argue that even if it Darwinism has led to the end of the idea that there is a truly fixed human nature, in practice human nature is fixed.
• Malleability. One extreme is the argument that most of what gets called human nature are really just determined by social conditioning or "nurture".

2. Religious understandings of what is normal (and therefore what is good or bad) for humans do not rely on the concept of human nature. Instead, humans are seen as subject to human-like intentions of a God or gods or divine beings of some kind, and are generally seen as somehow especially closely linked to the divine compared to other beings in nature. Arguably, such an understanding of what is human is not in conflict with the possibility that there is such a thing as human nature. Indeed, in late classical and medieval philosophy, classical rationalism was often argued to be compatible with Abrahamic religion. And in our time, it is sometimes argued that various religions are compatible with modern scientific rationalism.

--Andrew Lancaster 21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross-cultural Studies and Cultural Anthropology

The definition of "human nature" states:

"Human nature is the fundamental nature and substance of humans, as well as the range of human behavior that is, believed to be invariant over long periods of time and across very different cultural contexts ... According to the accepted modern scientific understanding human nature is the range of human behavior that is believed to be normal and/or invariant over long periods of time and across very different cultural contexts."

The article then goes on listing a number of different conceptions of human nature.

Yet, cross-cultural studies, cultural anthropology and social anthropology are not even being mentioned!

Hey, to find out what varies across different cultures and what is constant (and thus may be rooted in human nature, since it´s not culturally variable), and especially to falsify speculative a priori conceptions of "human nature" - wouldn´t the first thing a sensible empirical researcher would do be to actually compare different cultures? Hey, there are branches of research who have been doing that for about 100 yrs now.

I think the article needs to reference those.

Also missing is a discussion of the purposes different conceptions of human nature may serve or have been serving. If a certain pattern of behavior that is typical for a specific culture is attributed to human nature, a misgeneralization is being made. One of the purposes behind such an attribution may be to label a certain pattern of behavior - which may be rooted in specific social institutions - as essentially unchangeable, when in fact it COULD be changed (if such a change then would be desirable or not is another question).

Of course, such a misgeneralization may easily be falsified by providing counterexamples from other cultures, which may be one of the reasons why certain conceptions of human nature avoid any reference to cultural anthropology and cross-cultural studies. They may try to keep their generalizations about human nature from being falsified with counterexamples from other cultures. It seems, for example, that many adherents of a "homo oeconomicus" conception of human nature systematically avoid contradictory evidence from economic anthropology. --Thewolf37 19:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. Andries 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not an obscure neologism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is not an obscure neologism then it would be easy to provide multiple reliable sources books, peer reviewed articles etc. I am waiting. I am also waiting for use of the phrase in the context of this article. Andries 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose to use the alternative phrase Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Metaphysics and Ethics - question on Naturalism

Quotation from article: Philosophical naturalism (which includes materialism and rationalism) encompasses a set of views that humans are purely natural phenomena; sophisticated beings that evolved to our present state through natural mechanisms such as evolution. Humanist philosophers determine good and evil by appeal to universal human qualities, but other naturalists regard these terms as mere labels placed on how well individual behaviour conforms to societal expectations, and is the result of our psychology and socialization.

Science - the foundation of materialism and rationalism - is about the measurement of objective phenomena, and explaining the causes of said phenomena, is it not? From a purely scientific view, humans cannot be "sophisticated" (though, can be chemically complex), nor can any person or thing be "good" or "evil", as these are non-quantifiable, and have no cause or effect within a scientific framework. Hence, I wonder why all these unreconcilable ideas make it into the same paragraph.

Perhaps I don't know enough about philosophy... Someone else can take the responsibility of expanding or better explaining this section if they see it fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.68.140 (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Human Crisis

Dear Friends I am writing to you because I believe we all should interact when crisis happens.My name is Nuha Dafaalla I am one of the Sudanese refugee live in Australia and I got the Australian Citizen,I am one of the Women here suffer from the conspiracy by the Australian Government.Targeting the sick refugees women who have medical problem with the Uterus and we never got the cure.I was forced to travel overseas of my own to be cured I travel twice to another countries for help and now I am fighting but alone because the other women scared to face the Australian Government .I Have been for nearly 4 years fighting the Australian Government for my right and other women rights. But the legal System discriminated against me and most of the solicitors do not want to proceed against the Australian Government .And am every day facing problem from Department to another department every day I am suffering of the bad treatment from the this Government.I do not have any citizenship except the Australian Citizenship and I came to Australia as a Political Refugee. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.200.105 (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Things that Make You Say 'Huh'?

"the chemical model within modern psychiatry and psychology, which have tended to emphasize the idea that human beings might conceivably be explained as 'matter in motion' in a way that is similar to the rest of nature. Recently the biologist E. O. Wilson formulated a scientific definition."

I find it odd, to say the least, that this is on a list of modern challenges to the "very concept" of human nature. Wouldn't the 'chemical model' confirm that 'concept' by giving it a microcosmic basis? --Christofurio 03:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I altered the science material, while leaving the wording as similar as possible, to reflect the diversity of views on this. Please feel free to reword, expand, cite. And i removed the Wilson material, since he's not a critic of HN, not even according to this very article (at bottom). "alyosha" (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it stated that exposure to testosterone in the womb makes men naturally more adept at math, while verbal skill is caused by the lack of this exposure that female fetuses experience? This statement is not verified in the article, and I was under the impression that its validity is debatable.

twins

"Identical twins have identical genes, and therefore identical innate behavior." <-- This is wrong. Human genes can at best provide a predisposition to certain patterns of behavior. Here are two reasons why identical genes do not produce identical innate behavior in identical twins:

1. It has been shown that identical twins do not have identical patterns of gene expression. Two individuals developing in the same womb will still have slightly different environmental influences which will alter gene expression.
2. Even if there were identical patterns of gene expression in twins, the development of the human brain is not exactly determined by genes. There are many small steps in neural development that are sensitive to the environment and/or dependent on esentially random events. The brains of identical twins are not identical. This would be better: "Identical twins have identical genes and similar brains and therefore they are predisposed to having similar patterns of innate behavior." --Memenen 23:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the material. There's a lot of good twin info to include, but it needs to be written accurately, and i don't have time. Best for now to just remove what is patently inaccurate. "alyosha" (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reason so many lead themselves to the conclusion that twins are - in nature completly identical to each other even in their behaviour - has nothing to do with their genes or DNA, rather it has everything to do with illusion. They look exactly the same, except their hair style, and that should be your first clue. Because of this extreme and vivid similarity we forgo other small differences and then begin to show how their behaviour is so identical, even though if you have two brothers that are not twins of very similar age, still behaving similar to each other. However we don't say that their behaviour is identical, solely for the fact that they are not twins. You see this happens because they live identical lives, they both live in the same house, they both grow up the same way, they are both treated the same by their parents as they are both born at the same time, to they get equal attention, and no one has a chance to grow on to the parents and become their favourite son or daughter. Therefore it is this same lifestyle that makes them so similar and in error makes us conclude it is so because they are twins. If they where both to grow up a wold apart, this would not be the case they would be completely different, even by their appearance would be clearly different because of different lifestyles. --Turbinator (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wounded human nature: Catholic view vs Protestant view

I added the Catholic view on wounded human nature to distinguish it from the Protestant view on totally corrupt human nature. The previous version gave the Protestant view as the only Christian view-- human nature as inherently evil. The Catholic view is that man was created good but was wounded by his own sin. Marax 09:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've also changed "Christian doctrine" under "inherently bad" state of nature, to "protestant doctrine", because Catholic doctrine is also Christian and it is different, as I said above. Marax (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

which disciplines

In the current opening section there is this sentence: "The branches of science associated with the study of human nature include sociology, sociobiology and psychology, particularly evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology." I would like to ask someone to defend this. I do not recall seeing the term "human nature" get used in these fields very often. Yes, they study humans and what it is to be human, but then (1) what would the justification be for just picking out this small range of academic disciplines, and demoting philosophy, theology etc? (2) don't these fields in their modern form generally try to positively avoid discussing "human nature" and whether there is a such a thing in any fixed sense? Do others also think this looks very odd?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Austrian school but no mention of David Hume?

Hmmm.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Concrete proposal: this Austrian section says nothing worth saying and should be removed. The Austrians disagreed with Marx, but they did not have an original theory on this subject. I think Hume was a source? Hume of course should be mentioned. He was before Marx, but both Kant and Rousseau were to some extent writing with him in mind. In the end Hume's approach has become the normal one. Rousseau and Kant and Marx no longer convince many people.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Change to first sentence

From: Human nature is set of logical characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that all normal human beings have in common. To: Human nature is the concept that there are a set of logical characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that all normal human beings have in common.

The idea that there is a verifiable set of characteristics which can be labelled 'human nature' is just that - an idea, a concept. There are those who follow the Tabula rasa idea of no pre-ordained, invariable set of characteristics, as well as Antihumanism. The previous wording of the first sentence doesn't read as if there is any debate. --Cooper-42 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a different problem with the current first sentence. It is dangerously tautological (and prejudiced) in defining "human nature" as the characteristics of "normal people". This is actually sourced to a book where, from what I gather from the relevant bits accessible on Google books, this is part of the author's depiction of the evolutionary psychology concept of human nature that he is attempting to refute. So I'm going to try moving his points and source down to the evolution section, and add a very general sentence that can cover the diverse range of more specific definitions covered in this article. Pile-Up (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not a good opening, because it has been academicized un-necessarily. I have changed it and would like to know what others think. I think your comment about it being tautological is OK given that the version you refer to makes you ask what the point of the subject is. But this is because it was beating around the bush. The term human nature is originally a term to refer to whatever things we humans use to identify a human as a human, and when you think about it, that is STILL all it means. Trying to say this in a complicated way has actually led to saying less and more and getting it wrong. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happier with it, doesn't stray too far from just combining concepts of humanity and essence, and their contrasts... Pile-Up (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

doing some work on the historical section

The historical section is a collection of interesting stuff which can be structured and I'll try to do it without loosing too much. One thing I already noticed though was this bit

In one disguise or another, Plato's dualism between the soul and the body was immensely influential. It insinuated itself deeply into Christian theology — a process that began, perhaps, as early as the Gospel of John. Descartes' famous contrast between the soul that thinks and the body that is extended is a distinctive take on Plato, as is Kant's contrast between the noumenal and the phenomenal aspects of human nature.

Dualism's connection to the history of human nature is not a simple and direct one but maybe a connection can be made. However this paragraph as it stands is not yet showing the link. Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I know the section needs better sourcing. I have left that tag there and that job should be made easier by the work I've been doing. Everything I have written or worked on this evening so far can easily be sourced. It is just a matter of getting to it. However if others want to change the section tag to specific inline tags that might be a useful guideline for me or anyone else to prioritize that job of getting the sources most needed, first. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Concerning the arguments for invariance in psychology and biology

Using the statement that all individuals and all societies have faces, smile and use their eyes for thinking and flirting to define human nature as being invariable may seem a little too simple for such a complex feature of humans. The statement is true but the conclusion is irrelevant for the following reason: - cognitive processes may trigger simmilar movements of our eyes (like accessing memory) but it's not the eyes that convey cognition process.

Also the source concerning the females attraction of more masculin faces during the ovulation period, may have a title that suggest that, but the contents of the study shows that men with more symmetrical faces and rugged looks have higher level of hormones, the so called smell of manhood being the cause for the attraction of fertile women. This is also supported by the fact that choices made by women who use oral contraceptives (not fertile) do not vary in this particular case.

No success has ever been scientifically demonstrated in re-assigning an individual's handedness statement is also untrue if we consider the information supported by citations and references to research made by the "science people". Man can even become left-handed if the right hand is injures or he is incapable of using it for long periods of time.

I believe that newborn babies are attracted to human faces because they interact with humans since they are born.

In conclusion I suggest the deletion of "arguments for invariance" since the arguments don't have any reliable information concerning the Human nature. I have a couple of suggestions also for the questionable objectivity on "social maleability" but I want to learn the editing guidelines since this article is rated as high importance and i'm a rookie. Any advice (or pointing out biased logic) from the experienced wikipedians would be apreciated.

CuttingEdgeSeeker (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we summarize what has been published in sources of good repute even if we think it is wrong. The question comes with getting the balance right. If there is debate in the world, we try report all the mainstream positions, in about the same balance as they appear in those mainstream reputable publications. So rather than deleting something, we'd normally tend to try to get balance right by adding information about context and criticisms. Deletions would normally be reserved for WP:fringe materials. There is sometimes a need on Wikipedia to reduce the emphasis given to a particular theory or single publication which some editor might have over-favored.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

After reading the editing guidelines and starter guides I can say that you expressed the important essence of useful contribution in a maner I wish to learn too in time. Although the argument for invariation may seem shallow, pointing out the underlying causes beneath simple choices or behaviours (hormons, adaptability, evolution) can raise awarness about how the body affects the individual through biological means and also the psyche at a more basic level. This creates a connection between a body holding certain universal laws of functioning that aply to all individuals, and the mind which is one of a kind in every human but flexible enough to support societies and culture. Having a biological fixed human nature doesn't have to deny the social malleability of human nature since societies are formed by humans who share common goals, beliefs and not identic minds.

CuttingEdgeSeeker (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For sure we are constantly working on getting subtle points like this right. Perhaps you should also look at the Nature versus nurture article. Maybe this is a good place to start when familiarizing yourself with those policies which give us our rough boundaries: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional Citations

Perhaps this article should have a few more references. The first paragraph, for example, has none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.46.97 (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps yes, of course. Improvement never stops on Wikipedia. But be careful about judging it based on the first paragraph. These tend to summarize the rest of the article and therefore they do not tend to be full of footnotes if it can be avoided.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Anarchist conceptions of human nature?

I'm kind of disappointed at the lack of any mentions to mutual aid in this article. Can we make a section devoted to it?--CapitalistOverlord (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is rather brief so I am not sure it is clear what you are suggesting. Just guessing, if you are talking about human socialbility and empathy as being part of human nature then this possibly also raises the question of whether we should have sections on other things that have been proposed to be part of human nature. I do not think the article contains any attempt to even list them yet. Of course things like social/communal instincts would need to also be discussed in sourcable terms explaining how human sociality is different from that in other animals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nayef Al-Rodhan

Recent addition on Nayef Al-Rodhan seemed a little too WP:SOAP. 5 links to the guy's page over 3 paragraphs. Also, it lacked much in the way of citations - quotes were not cited and it's all based on a single book by him (with a link to amazon to buy it!)

Anyway, I know little about the man's work, so cannot really edit it. Apologies for the complete removal, feel free to edit it down, add citations and put it back in if relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooper-42 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It came back and I cut it down to a single sentence, although even this may be WP:UNDUE, if we're giving an Oxford academic the same weight as Darwin or Hobbes. --McGeddon (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Western Focus

The introduction to this article states "The questions of what [natural human characteristics] are (...), are among the oldest and most important questions in western philosophy".

The 'History' segment states "(Notions and concepts of human nature from China, Japan or India are not taken up in the present discussion.)".

Why not? Why is "Human nature" import specifically in western philosophy? Why are notions and concepts from China, Japan or India not considered? This seems arbitrary, a waste of interesting and valuable ideas, and not in accordance with the actual history of notions of "Human nature" (notions from all over the world have influenced each other).

-- Koen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.73.110 (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Reason for adding Sec 1.4 Theology

The article’s lead says that understanding human nature has “important implications” for “theology.” However, the article did not follow-up on this. So I researched and wrote Sec 1.4 Theology. Vejlefjord (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hume and Rousseau

Hi. I was reading the article and found the following passage at the end of the heading "Modernism":

"Rousseau's proposal that human nature is malleable became a major influence upon international revolutionary movements of various kinds, while Hume's approach has been more typical in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the United States."

We have a responsibility to make things as clear as possible, so let's change that to:

"Rousseau = (Nazi Germany & USSR) = Bad; Hume = (USA & UK) = Good"

This way, the kids who access this encyclopedia will learn, from an early age, what kind of philosophy they should be in favor of, and what kind they should dismiss. Let's put them on the correct path.186.212.54.99 (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

need for sources

I have asked User:Staszek Lem to give a chance to editors to find sources to justify this material, that Staszek proposes to delete for not being sourced.

• First a general note: the article is not often edited, and obviously imperfect. If lack of sourcing was a good reason to delete material without warning then why not delete everything fitting that description on Wikipedia? Obviously that would be controversial and it is not really a policy.

Looking at the materials being proposed for deletion I will try to start the ball rolling. Please let's remember WP:DEADLINE.

• Opening line definition (not yet proposed for deletion, but already flagged): "Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—which humans tend to have naturally, independently of the influence of culture." Ideally we should indeed have sources posted, but the implication of deleting this is that we doubt this is a real subject deserving a Wikipedia article.
• "The branches of contemporary science associated with the study of human nature include anthropology, sociology, sociobiology, and psychology, particularly evolutionary psychology, which studies sexual selection in human evolution, as well as developmental psychology." I guess this is a classic case of a sentence some might argue to be justifiable obvious synthesis. It just stating for the benefit of readers that the subject of this Wikipedia article is a real one in some serious fields, which is then hopefully something the reader will then see in the article. (And if not, then maybe the problem is in the rest of the article.)
• "Philosophy in classical Greece is the ultimate origin of the western conception of the nature of a thing." This is discussed and sourced, I think, in our article on Nature (Philosophy).
• Whole section on "Natural Science". Also here I just start with some quick perspective giving comments: First the section refers to a main article. I think it is common in such a case that such a section might be a past compression of more complete work done in the other article and so deleting a section like this for being imperfect is not a normal first step. Did Staszek check the main article?
• Second, I notice that the section is not completely unsourced and also largely summarizes the positions of some very well known historical authors, which are in a sense sources, and will all have multiple articles about them. Again not perfect, but again, when we are summarising something which will be in other articles in more detail, immediate deletion without discussion seems to me not to be a normal first step towards improvement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• re "opening line" --yes it is flagged and will remain so until you provide a ref. And the tag does not impy deletion. On the other hand, you you fail to find and adequate definition, then the whole article is baseless. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• re: "branches of contemporary science" - pointless incomplete unreferenced dubious. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• re: "ultimate origin" - vague, peacock, dubuious, primitivistic, unreferenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• re: "Whole section" - unreferenced, dubious relevance of some pieces of text. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• re: "then why not delete everything" -- demagogy rhetoric. Dubious material may be deleted at any time. And the onus is on you to provide verification. Yes, there is no deadline. But it works in both ways; there is no deadline to add correct, verified material, so WP:DEADLINE does not mean we have to keep garbage indefinitely. Pseudophilosophical babble does more harm than good to brain. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I must apologize for not having had much time this week. It is likely that for work reasons I am going to have trouble to find time for a while, but I will try, maybe in small bits. Let's see.

Second, DEADLINE does not work both ways, or at least not exactly the same in two ways. Articles can go backwards after deletions for technicalities, especially on articles which are not very busy like this one. That is why we say that "dubious" (or something like that) material can be deleted at any time, and do not just say "any material". There should also be some common sense about how we prioritize whether to tag, delete, using talk pages etc. This is a long standing consensus on Wikipedia. See WP:PRESERVE.

So thirdly, in terms of understanding how urgent the situation is, apart from the quick cross referencing I gave to other articles which are already better sourced, it takes a few seconds of googling to see that the definition given is consistent with published dictionaries etc. The key point I'd like to make sure of is the contrast being made with culture (maybe another term is better). Some such contrast is of course involved in deeper published discussions such as the Greek physis/nomos distinction, or the more contemporary "nature versus nurture" (which by the way has an article in Wikipedia I think?). The basic controversy of human nature is, in other words, what is meant by nature, which has changed over the centuries.

I think most of what is probably rightfully annoying you comes from the article being very incomplete and unfinished. In such a situation, deleting material is normally something we should be a bit careful of. It would be strange to write as if neither of us have ever heard of human nature?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• On a specific point I see you have avoided deleting mention of Charles Darwin and E.O. Wilson while you allow some time to look for sources, but is there something about Freud you have particular aversion to? Did Freud not, for better or worse, have a major influence upon how human nature is understood? I would have thought this is arguably his most lasting and strong influence in many fields? It will be harder to go looking for sources if I must look through the article history looking for deleted things needing sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• The E.O. Wilson paragraph does mention a source. The Darwin paragraph does not name his famous book and so it should. And yet I find it a bit silly to see someone tagging that paragraph as if we doubt that there is a known Darwin book which "gave a widely accepted scientific argument [...] that humans and other animal species have no truly fixed nature, at least in the very long term [giving] modern biology a new way of understanding how human nature does exist in a normal human time-frame, and how it is caused". I have serious doubts that there are many Wikipedia editors who do not know the name of that book and can not see that this is a non controversial description of it. Possibly there are some of course, but then people with that lack of knowledge will not normally be aggressive deletors? See WP:BLUE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This subject is so vague and immensely broad , and as such is a magnet for indiscriminate collection of bits and pieces about humans, prone to grow into a chaotic pile of an essay. One needs a clean-cut article based on sources which specifially discuss human nature, and as such cite Darwin and who else. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you now admit that you know the source, this is not the same as what your tag indicates to be your concern, so it seems you are changing your criticisms constantly. But what is "vague" and "indiscriminate" about the sentence you tagged? It seems pretty clear to me.

"gave a widely accepted scientific argument [...] that humans and other animal species have no truly fixed nature, at least in the very long term [giving] modern biology a new way of understanding how human nature does exist in a normal human time-frame, and how it is caused"

I think what you say about what "one needs" applies to an eventual expanded discussion about Darwin, but not about such a very simple statement as currently in the article. Surely what we have now concerning Darwin is just a place holder for future work. Deleting and tag bombing of uncontroversial and clear information are not going to help editors build from there. I also do not believe that you can seriously have a concern that Darwin is not relevant to this subject and no reliable sources exist. Again, a few seconds of googling will show you there is indeed an "immensely broad" literature. The practical problem is that someone needs to sift it and turn into Wikipedia text, and I am short on time right now. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Human Universals

The book Human Universals, by Donald E Brown lists several hundred "human universals" that make up human nature. Brown's work is cited by Steven Pinker in his book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. I consider Brown's work to be an important explication of human nature. I suggest incorporating these identified Human Universals prominently into this article. --Lbeaumont (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human nature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527020558/http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_99_82.html to http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_99_82.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Registering a discussion about the last section

Just to register an on-going discussion, which has arisen after deletion edits by Staszek Lem which I disagreed with:

• First edit removed the most clearly sourced statement in the section.
• Second edit deleted the whole section on the basis of no sources.
• My reversion with comment "reverting too [sic] edits which removed a lot of basic material. The excuse makes no sense because sources were removed in the first edit, and then no sources was the excuse. And the book of Darwin about mankind is pretty well known!".

...and so on including posts on User talk pages. My message on Staszek's talk page:

"I am not sure what your concern is, either in a policy sense or any other. There are two sources named, and I think there is no disputing, anyway, that what they say (which is quite simple and very well-known) is uncontroversial and notable. You are right that it is vague, but it is obviously a stub section that eventually needs to be expanded. Keep in mind you are deleting a whole section. I think the policy logic has to be that used for article stubs. I propose that the correct tagging should be on that basis and the material restored for some future editor to build up more. But also I intend to post on the talk page and I propose that the main discussion should be there. Please explain any concerns there."

I think in general tag-bombing an uncontroversial and obviously-needed stub is poor practice, and helps the quality of an article in no way at all? There are thousands of books and articles about the effect of modern Darwinian biology on the understanding of human nature. I think to spend energy on debate about whether this obvious fact is true rather than simply going and expanding the section is not constructive.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I had forgotten, but now note, that there was discussion about similar edits above, quite a long time ago. I see that Staszek Lem stopped replying at that time when similar issues about these types of edits were raised. To note one of the points noted then: the current tagging by Staszek Lem implies that he honestly thinks it can not be verified that Charles Darwin and E.O. Wilson had a major impact on the way human nature is visualized, but this is clearly not what Staszek Lem believes, so to start with the tagging is incorrect/misleading.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Summary of my reply: Please don't waste time and words, just provide references where requested, per our most fundamental policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

First edit removed the most clearly sourced statement in the section. -- The first edit wemoved the most obfuscating sentence in the section recently added by an anon IP and sourced to a primary source of an author of unknown expertise. (Yes it is primary source because the author spills his own brains rather than reporting/summarizing th known stuff.) Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Second edit deleted the whole section on the basis of no sources. - yes, no sources, tagged since 2016. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC) And the book of Darwin about mankind is pretty well known! (a) Give the freaking book and page number, then! {b} The statement <Darwin> gave a widely accepted scientific argument cannot be sourced to Darwin. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ...and so on Sure thing, just a minor omission on your side that I self-reverted my deletion of the whole section, in a good will. But judging from your attitude, this section is up to sitting two more years unreferenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Conclusion: I honestly think that I cannot believe in anything written by a Wikipedian, AGF and all. Please provide references as requested. Yes I can believe that Darwin made a major impact, but you are dragging a red herring here and trying to portray me as a stubborn honest ignoramus. I requested the ref not about Darwin's grandeur, but about specific statements. If there were a ref, I would have read it and expanded. As of now the section is useless gobbledygook. Please stop second-guessing about what I honestly think and telling me how important this section is, just follow the crystal-clear policy and add references where tagged for your convenience. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC) I see that Staszek Lem stopped replying And I am stopping replying again. I am coming back in one month, and if still unreferenced, it will be deleted. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy problem at all, and please stop dramatizing. There is no point deleting stubs, and leaving them as a base for for future work is normal practice. This is a section which eventually needs to be made and contains nothing but obvious (and yes, vague) statements to be built upon. (If they were less vague and obvious the need for sourcing would be more important.) Tag bombing such simple material is not constructive editing. There is no deadline, and certainly you have no authority to give other editors deadlines.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll post some quotes only about the basic point being made in the text today, found simply by using google books searching "charles darwin" and "human nature". I am deliberately keeping this simple for now and making no specific editing proposals because the first point to get past now is the fake problem caused by someone pretending that Darwin is not well-known to be extremely notable for this article.

Human Nature After Darwin: A Philosophical Introduction By Janet Radcliffe Richard. p.4 https://books.google.be/books?id=erPNByCjCGEC :

"When The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it not only offered a radically different account of animal origins from anything there had been before, but also carried the unmistakeable implication that most traditional beliefs about our own nature and our destiny would need equally radical reconsideration. The zoologist G.G.Simpson, writing in 1966, said that all attempts to answer questions about the nature of human beings and the meaning of life before 1859 had been worthless, and that we should be better off if we ignored them completely."

In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American ... By Carl N. Degler p.6. https://books.google.be/books?id=XNp5VWN5brwC :

"Because Darwin set the framework within which American social scientists of the late nineteenth century pursued their effort to understand human behavior and human nature, we need briefly to examine that Darwinian framework."

Readings on Human Nature edited by Peter Loptson p.285 https://books.google.be/books?id=6bGOKpFOY7kC&pg=PA285 :

"Charles Darwin (1809-1882) is by general consent the greatest creative biologist of modern times, perhaps of all times, and since he had a variety of things to say about human nature, for this reason alone it is appropriate that he is represented in this volume. In fact, the signficance of Darwin's work directly and indirectly connected to the conceptions of human identity in and since the nineteenth century is still greater than this. As well as having developed his own original and distinctive views about humans, Darwin is claimed as the guiding thinker for several subsequent theories, some of which go in very different, indeed incompatible directions."

I note that Freud, slightly less incredibly obviously someone needed in the eventual section, but deleted from the stub by Lem, is chapter 31 in the last book. E.O. Wilson is chapter 30.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

LSE project

We are working on Section 6 of this page ("Contemporary Philosophy") from 18 Jan as part of a class project for the London School of Economics course "Genes, Brains and Society". J.birch2 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a link to the project.J.birch2 (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject

What WikiProject should this article belong to? BecomeFree (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Merging Human condition here

Is there any reason we should not merge Human condition into here? That article looks like a stub, and I see no reason to keep it separate inasmuch as both concepts refer to the same, with whatever very little distinction there is not seeming significant. BecomeFree (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to attempt a merger. The best reason comes from the lede of this article: "The term [human nature] 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."

The term "the human condition" has become well-established in literature; it has a different emphasis than "human nature". I'm removing the tags for this proposal. -Pmffl (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. BecomeFree (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)