• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Are humans good or bad? Here’s the prognosis, according to psychology

prasad1

Well-known member
It’s a question that’s reverberated through the ages – are humans, though imperfect, essentially kind, sensible, good-natured creatures? Or are we, deep down, wired to be bad, blinkered, idle, vain, vengeful and selfish? There are no easy answers, and there’s clearly a lot of variation between individuals, but here we shine some evidence-based light on the matter through 10 dispiriting findings that reveal the darker and less impressive aspects of human nature:

1. We view minorities and the vulnerable as less than human.
2. We experience Schadenfreude (pleasure at another person’s distress) by the age of four.
3. We believe in karma – assuming that the downtrodden of the world deserve their fate.
4. We are blinkered and dogmatic.
5. We would rather electrocute ourselves than spend time in our own thoughts.
6. We are vain and overconfident.
7. We are moral hypocrites.
8. We are all potential trolls.
9. We favour ineffective leaders with psychopathic traits.
10. We are sexually attracted to people with dark personality traits.

Don’t get too down – these findings say nothing of the success that some of us have had in overcoming our baser instincts. In fact, it is arguably by acknowledging and understanding our shortcomings that we can more successfully overcome them, and so cultivate the better angels of our nature.


https://scroll.in/article/904891/are-humans-good-or-bad-heres-the-prognosis-according-to-psychology
 

Jaykay767

Well-known member
Sorry, have to disagree with this assessment !

All humans want to be good and be in the path of righteousness. Our mind / subconscious is programmed with good and bad to ensure people follow natural justice.

If someone is being wronged, we automatically rise up to support him or her.

Now under certain circumstances, tough upbringing, suffering, leads to some people lose their moral compass and compromise on the morals.

But that does not mean they don't recognise good or bad, but they compromise due to their circumstances. And these people will tell you in private, what is right or wrong and lament how they were forced to compromise.

I am excluding people suffering from mental illness and some truly evil people who have no conscience at all.
 

sravna

Well-known member
This half baked findings of science does harm than anything else. Our scriptures nail this one. Humans are by their inner nature perfect and get projected as good or bad depending on how well their inner nature is unveiled.

These shoddy experimental findings which have no real basis in logic charecterize most of truths of science.
 

renuka

Well-known member
Lets discuss without taking sides of science vs religion.

Religion says the innate human nature is goodness and peace loving.

Now from the biological point of view the human body is always trying to maintain its state of homeostasis..a sort of equilibrium state as if its self correcting and self cleansing till life style or disease changes it.

Even in utero if a mother who is pregnant..whatever changes the mothers body undergoes during pregnancy or even any organ damage..the fetus sends stems cells to the mother to help heal the mother.

Ok.sorry mums! Stop saying you sacrificied everything for your child..your child paid you by stem cells! Lol

So a child owes his dad more technically cos he doesnt send any cell to his dad for being the sperm donor...i guess thats why life long a child uses his dads name.

Ok..so what does this show?
It shows every state of change is met with a balance.

Its this balance religion must be calling goodness but in reality a state of balance is neither good nor bad..its just its true nature.

Now coming to brain function..a head injury can render the most polite person into an rude and violent person becos the brain has lost ita dampening effect to condition our impulses.

When we lose the dampening effect we are raw and primal..which seem like we are bad and lack compassion.

So the underlying human mind is very much primal but conditioning makes us civilized in outcome.

Now..economical reasons..
Take poorer countries ..many are highly materialistic and corrupt and have lack of human values though religion would pervade the air..reason?
Lack of resources..the poor would do anything for a meal and the rich would do anything to remain rich.

Now uproot the same race and plant him in a country with resources for a few generations..we would see him not corrupt and with better human values becos he knows even by being mediocore he can live comfortably well.

So my final unproven personal opinion diagnosis...Humans are neither good nor bad..dissected bare we are primal..if economically stable in a stable environment we are normal and when everything is sufficient we are in a state of balance.
 

a-TB

Well-known member
This half baked findings of science does harm than anything else. Our scriptures nail this one. Humans are by their inner nature perfect and get projected as good or bad depending on how well their inner nature is unveiled.

These shoddy experimental findings which have no real basis in logic charecterize most of truths of science.
Could you please answer these questions?


a. What scriptures are you referring to in particular to claim 'our scriptures nail this one'. Please give reference to specific scriptures that you have read and reference here. No evasive answers please
b. What do you consider as Science in this context? The reference in Post 1 is not about any hard science
 

sravna

Well-known member
Dear Shri a-TB,

a. I am referring to the advaitic concept of atman which is brahman being the real self of everyone.
b. Both hard science and soft science rely on experimental proof which are rebuttable by future experimental findings. This I think is dubious and has no basis in logic.
 

renuka

Well-known member
Dear Shri a-TB,

a. I am referring to the advaitic concept of atman which is brahman being the real self of everyone.
b. Both hard science and soft science rely on experimental proof which are rebuttable by future experimental findings. This I think is dubious and has no basis in logic.
Hard science and soft science?
I didnt know science too had a hard core and soft version.
 

a-TB

Well-known member
Dear Shri a-TB,

a. I am referring to the advaitic concept of atman which is brahman being the real self of everyone.
b. Both hard science and soft science rely on experimental proof which are rebuttable by future experimental findings. This I think is dubious and has no basis in logic.
OK, let us delve into your understanding of what you have said and see if logic prevails. I am not questioning scriptures since you have not cited any but only your understanding.

a. You have a concept called Advaitic concept. A concept is a mental thing. Please answer the following with respect to your understanding of this concept.

1. How do you know this concept is right. Dont tell me it is right because some scripture has it. That by itself is not rational. In your understanding, how do you know it is right
2. So what if atman is Brahman - these are two words. What do they mean to you
3. In what way it is relevant to the discussion. Post 1 details human behavior as observed. Surely you cannot say such behaviors do not exist. So how does your 'advaitic concept' nails it. You have not made the connection

4. Open mind means new experiments can always improve current understanding. It is not that you have provided a perfect understanding of the universe that is changeless. So what is dubious really since you have no other options. Dont give some mumbo-jumbo about sprituality. Can you be concrete and logical in your response
 

sravna

Well-known member
I do not find it worth my time to engage with you. You vanished away from the first debate and I frankly see nothing more than empty assertions and personal attacks in your messages.
 

a-TB

Well-known member
I do not find it worth my time to engage with you. You vanished away from the first debate and I frankly see nothing more than empty assertions and personal attacks in your messages.
One must not confuse challenges to one's messages as an attack on the person. I have not attacked you as a person. If you are unable to see the difference I can understand since logic is not apparent in your messages here.

I have challenged by pointing out absurdities using your own words you schooled me on and you had no logical response. There was nothing more to say in that silly thread. I did not disappear, I had just given up.

Here, in this thread, you made some statements and I wanted to show you again how there are logical issues with them. Since your posts do not show that you are widely read and have very narrow and wrong ideas about Science and Philosophy, it is easy to see the holes in your writing here. If you did not take such a strong stand I could just ignore what you write here.

If you want to run away from this discussion and do not man up to respond to the questions , that is fine. I understand that you have a fear of being exposed for your shallow messages.

May peace be with you
 

sravna

Well-known member
One must not confuse challenges to one's messages as an attack on the person. I have not attacked you as a person. If you are unable to see the difference I can understand since logic is not apparent in your messages here.

I have challenged by pointing out absurdities using your own words you schooled me on and you had no logical response. There was nothing more to say in that silly thread. I did not disappear, I had just given up.

Here, in this thread, you made some statements and I wanted to show you again how there are logical issues with them. Since your posts do not show that you are widely read and have very narrow and wrong ideas about Science and Philosophy, it is easy to see the holes in your writing here. If you did not take such a strong stand I could just ignore what you write here.

If you want to run away from this discussion and do not man up to respond to the questions , that is fine. I understand that you have a fear of being exposed for your shallow messages.

May peace be with you
Going to dustbin
 

a-TB

Well-known member
Going to dustbin
If my message went to the dustbin that is fine, it is where your set of messages originated, to which mine was just a response . Let me explain. The challenge to you that you have made disjointed and illogical statements remains . You can run but not hide, friend.

The thread was about human nature and some studies about people to support the statements (in Post 1). You jump in and declare "these half baked findings of science does more harm than good" and that our "scriptures nailed it". When asked to explain the logic of this claim such as harm with reference you said advita concept is that atman and Brahman are the same.

It appears as if atman is like Vendaikkai and Brahman is like Kathrickkai to you. You see them equal as vegetables - may be. How is that an explanation to observed human behavior listed in post 1 and its refutation?

Then you get into a soapbox about Science. Your messages do not show someone with understanding of Science (even if you claim you have a degree in Science). This is another unconnected idea and unjustified tirade about Science.

When challenged on the logic, or lack of it in your case, most serious debaters will provide a logical response. Since logic is not your cup of tea I have low expectations. But I feel I must point out absurd statements you make now and then in this forum .

May peace be with you
 

sravna

Well-known member
If my message went to the dustbin that is fine, it is where your set of messages originated, to which mine was just a response . Let me explain. The challenge to you that you have made disjointed and illogical statements remains . You can run but not hide, friend.

The thread was about human nature and some studies about people to support the statements (in Post 1). You jump in and declare "these half baked findings of science does more harm than good" and that our "scriptures nailed it". When asked to explain the logic of this claim such as harm with reference you said advita concept is that atman and Brahman are the same.

It appears as if atman is like Vendaikkai and Brahman is like Kathrickkai to you. You see them equal as vegetables - may be. How is that an explanation to observed human behavior listed in post 1 and its refutation?

Then you get into a soapbox about Science. Your messages do not show someone with understanding of Science (even if you claim you have a degree in Science). This is another unconnected idea and unjustified tirade about Science.

When challenged on the logic, or lack of it in your case, most serious debaters will provide a logical response. Since logic is not your cup of tea I have low expectations. But I feel I must point out absurd statements you make now and then in this forum .

May peace be with you
I still see only empty assertions and some generic attack which has no relevance to what I said. But you are doing slightly better than the stupid talkbots that the silicon valley researchers keep churning out.
 

a-TB

Well-known member
I still see only empty assertions and some generic attack which has no relevance to what I said. But you are doing slightly better than the stupid talkbots that the silicon valley researchers keep churning out.
Not sure what you think of the typical reader here with your answers. People can figure out. Members here are smart.

Yes I have been persistent and a pain. But I am calling out the hot air you spew here with your messages.

You can call me names like bot etc, say my message goes to dustbin etc. I accept all such replies. But you have not answered any specific questions that goes to the basic credibility of your statements.

1. You proclaimed that your understanding of advita 'concept' that atman is Brahman nails the topic of this thread as in Post 1. You have not answered how you know this concept is correct, you have not answered how it is connected to the topic of the thread clearly.

2. You said (I would say babbled ) about science being inadequate. But specifically for the study cited what is your alternative?

You can respond if you have the guts . Use the first paragraph to dole out insults towards me. Then answer the questions if you have the guts. The assertions I make about your messages (illlogical, hot air, not well read , stuck in a mental cave etc) can all be dismissed by showing some scholarship in your response.

I have seen your past posts. Some years ago I would have almost thought some substance but they still are BS because they lacked logic. But now the responses and assertions have gone down hill, my friend.

Lack of specific response will mean you are afraid of being challenged and want to hide. Please note my attack unlike you, are only directed at the content of your messages, not you.

I have low expectations. Prove me wrong

May peace be with you
 

sravna

Well-known member
Dear Shri a-TB,

My answers are in italics:

1. You proclaimed that your understanding of advita 'concept' that atman is Brahman nails the topic of this thread as in Post 1. You have not answered how you know this concept is correct, you have not answered how it is connected to the topic of the thread clearly.

How atman is brahman cannot be conveyed in one para. You may want to start a separate thread for that. But when atman is brahman it points to innate perfection of nature of humans

2. You said (I would say babbled ) about science being inadequate. But specifically for the study cited what is your alternative?
I do not consider experimental proof as reliable. I prefer that knowledge be derived by logic only and not use experimental proof to deny or accept logically proven knowledge. Only when there are gaps in your logic you resort to external help such as evidence in the physical world.

So kindly refrain from using extraneous words in yours statements such as babbling when you really do not understand what you are talking about.

May peace be with you[/QUOTE]
 

sravna

Well-known member
Our ancients developed science in the right way. For example in the case of ayurveda , the theory was first developed and then the practice followed unlike science as we see it now which is putting the cart before the horse only to evertually tie itself into knots.
 

a-TB

Well-known member
Our ancients developed science in the right way. For example in the case of ayurveda , the theory was first developed and then the practice followed unlike science as we see it now which is putting the cart before the horse only to evertually tie itself into knots.
The above message is a distraction, the logical issues presented earlier are still out there.

Besides the message itself is illogical. How would you know that 'our ancients' developed theory first?? 'Our ancients' never kept history. Also what is available as Ayurveda does not always provide cure.

Finally you probably know diddly sqat about Ayurveda (like me). So the message lacks credibility
 

sravna

Well-known member
The above message is a distraction, the logical issues presented earlier are still out there.

Besides the message itself is illogical. How would you know that 'our ancients' developed theory first?? 'Our ancients' never kept history. Also what is available as Ayurveda does not always provide cure.

Finally you probably know diddly sqat about Ayurveda (like me). So the message lacks credibility
The theory underlying ayurveda is consistent and interconnected with those used to describe reality and all spheres of reality.

For example the metaphysics of reality was developed first. All the other theories including those of yoga, ayurveda derive from the theory about reality and nothing in the theories were ever changed because of observations. But that is not the case with science. Once you find an observation contradicting theory in physics you change the theory in physics and leave the theories in other spheres untouched. So all develop in a disjoint and inconsistent way only to very likely finally develop contradictions.

Ayurveda does not indeed provide cure for all problems but then ones life is supposed to be decided by karma and if has to endure sufferings because of a health problem, one cannot circumvent that. It is under those constraints ayurveda operates.
 

sravna

Well-known member
Once you develop the big picture you then work only on the details. You do not try to tweak your big picture to suit observations. But this is the pathetic state of science.
 
Top