The Science Behind "Nice" People

Actually, that person was right - the scientific definition of 'proof' (as opposed to the lay definition, which you are using) is not about getting consistent results from behavioural experiments. Consistent results can give you a theory. But actual 'proof', in the scientific meaning, is only possible in mathematics. There is no real proof in psychology. Everything is theory, and debatable. You can only disprove something - not prove it. You see, you could do the experiment one million times and get the same results, but it's always possible to get different results the next time.

Neat.

The Price Equation is a mathematical algorithm to predict evolutionary constructs.

The same equation can used to predict genetic precursors for disease.

I never mentioned anything about psychology, at all, whatsoever.

Biology is not significantly different from psychology in this sense. Proof in a scientific (i.e. mathematical) sense does not exist in either.

I beat my husband with a stick all the time, and I find him attractive......

I think I have an obligation as an attorney to tell that... you're probably committing a crime there... just sayin.

Not if he consents she's not. There are a number of legal precedents for consenting to assault--professional boxing being the most obvious.

Nifty. None of that has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Thanks though.

You're the one who took it off track, and then you complain about it? Oh my.

This is long, but hear me out!
It would appear as though Price demonstrates that humans are social creatures and have adopted a “herd” mentality. I imagine this is very true, especially with the rise of early humanity.

However, there may be a mistaken assumption at work here. Scientist have to make certain assumptions about their work ex: an external world really exists, I can trust my senses, and so forth. These are all good and necessary assumptions.

One of those assumptions is methodological naturalism. Science does not assume that God. The supernatural, or the flying spaghetti monster is responsible for the way things are (a perfectly valid assumption). However, naturalism as a world-view (all that exists is material, all events are determined, there is no God) tends be adopted by the many in the intellectual and scientific community. Richard Dawkins who is a famously militant naturalist, stays that we are all the random collection of matter plus time plus chance and we are all dancing to our DNA, there is no such thing as free will.

So when you say, “When a woman finds a man attractive, she does so because that male displays physical and/or mental characteristics she would like her offspring to inherit,” this assumes that there is no agency or free will on the part of that woman. We automatically MUST act according to our genes and are completely unable to do otherwise.

Is that really the case? I don’t think so. If it were, then there is no objective right or wrong. We would have no basis to say something like “torturing babies for fun is wrong,” and not merely distasteful. If I tortured a baby, it was simply because my genes made me and I had no other choice. On naturalism, there is no basis for ethics. That is why I believe only on the basis of or the existence of God can we have transcendent, objective right and wrong.

Price was a Christian and I am as well. I wonder if he was not able to account for free will in his philosophy of science.

I would also hesitate to use Price’s suicide as evidence in favor of his research. I believe it doesn’t prove much other than he was emotionally and mentally in need of help.

The Price Equation is a mathematical algorithm to predict evolutionary constructs.

The same equation can used to predict genetic precursors for disease.

I never mentioned anything about psychology, at all, whatsoever.

You were talking about human behaviour, and the reasons behind it. That falls into the category of psychology, whether or not you use the term 'psychology' or not, and it remains in the category of psychology even when you apply statistical theorems to it. Nothing has been 'proven' about human behaviour in this way. All you can say is that there is evidence to suggest a theory. However, obviously in this case, there is contradictory evidence. You can predict, but the predictions will not always be correct. And even if they were, this would still be a theory. The Price equation isn't a proof. It's a theorem, also called the Price theorem. And the results that derive from it are not a proof about human behaviour.

Everything we do serves out own interest. However, sometimes that interest is simply feeling good inside. I do nice things for other people so that I can smile, whether or not anyone else ever notices. I don't enjoy the way it makes me feel to walk around not trusting everyone, so I don't do it very often.

Of course, I'm not always nice. Sometimes it feels good to be a d*** too.

Edit: The "science" here is the serotonin and dopamine we are rewarded as a result of carrying out functions that serve to prolong the survival of our species, more or less.

Makes me wish I'd taken up 'sneaky' instead.

I wonder if it's too late? Because being nice sure as hell never got me anywhere good.

I pretty much trust the idea that being social or "nice" is a genetic thing that's hardwired for survival.. makes sense for a social species. So if it's for survival, I trust THAT type of being nice, and am supportive and unsuspicious. The bit that becomes not trustworthy, is the niceness that is not legitimate, that is not only for personal gain, but is at the detriment of someone else.

And I think THAT is more of a character flaw than genetic coding. Otherwise everyone would be the false nice instead of the "real" one.
Obviously I'm not a scientist, I'm just interested in what motivates people to be who they are and how they are. Altruism does benefit the person who is giving..it makes us feel good and that helps us live longer. I'm not saying that's the motivation (it likely unconsciously is though), but it is the result. Even giving a present or surprise to a friend... seeing that person happy makes US happy.. and chemically that does something good to the brain.

I think for the most part, that the thread is talking about the genetic nice and the underhanded nice as one thing. And while they may start in the same place, I think it's the personality of the giver that changes it to something nasty.
That's my 2 cents from Canada... not sure what that is American today