Is human behaviour really the product of society?

[Struggle]

I asked the question quite provocatively, because I think it is an interesting question.

If different breeds of dogs are born with different types of behaviour, does that not challenge the argument that people too could have inherent behaviours, which were not necessarily produced from society?

If different breeds of dogs can be born more prone to anger than not, cannot humans be born more prone to anger than not?

One may say dogs are different to human beings, but that does not answer the question, and to answer the question, one must explain why the behaviour of a dog is not a product of society but the behaviour of a human is.

[scarletghoul]

No one in their right mind would argue that everything people do is a result of society. We are not vulgar reductionists like that, we are materialists. What this means is that things are primarily determined by material conditions. Material conditions doesn't just mean society (production and its relations), it also includes biological matter, which includes the brain and neurological conditions.. All these help in determining how people are.

Humans are different from other animals because they're more intelligent. Thats because we have more developed brains. Humans vary among themselves mostly due to material differences (be it brain, body, class, etc)..

In other words, human behaviour (or 'human nature') is determined by material conditions, which includes not just society but also our brain, other organs, environment, etc etc..

[Luisrah]

Of course not just society.

Your brain, your experiences, your education, society, all these things shape who you are. The people you talk to, the things you do, etc... Even the things you can do apart from society change you.

[¿Que?]

Do you think these hypothetical dogs would behave in the same way regardless of environment? Don't you think that a dog that is beaten constantly, or deprived of food, shelter, and water would be more aggressive than a dog not so deprived, regardless of breed?

[smk]

All human behavior is defined by personal biology, psychology, and social interactions. Psychiatrists call it the biopsychosocial model. Biology gives a predisposition to a behavior, while environment contributes too.

[Fulanito de Tal]

This picture illustrates a systems approach at human behavior. It shows how we are individuals and also part of larger systems. All of the layers adjacent ones.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h111/durancm/ecological_model1.jpg

For more on this shit, look it up on the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Systems_Theory

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's impossible to ever separate which traits we have which come from "nurture" and "nature". The synthesis in our personality is so deep that we can never know its true nature and the structure of its origins.

[Amphictyonis]

Why's there a disproportionate number of African Americans in US prisons? Do you think it's because they were born more likely to 'break the law' or is it the socioeconomic reality they're born into that determines the role they play?

[smk]

Why's there a disproportionate number of African Americans in US prisons? Do you think it's because they were born more likely to 'break the law' or is it the socioeconomic reality they're born into that determines the role they play?

This is an ongoing thread in the Science and Environment forum on this topic:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-t149266/index.html

It is certainly environment in this case. I'm sure wealthy african americans are not represented proportionally to poor african americans in prisons. The culprit here is societal pressures. After all, the VAST majority of prisoners today are in jail because of crimes related to poverty (theft for example) or for drugs (which can also be seen as caused by poverty and the culture of poverty.) There are relatively few people in prison for things such as serial murder or other totally violent crimes unrelated to societal pressures.
It should be noted that poor people are more highly represented proportionally in prisons than their rich counterparts AND that blacks are more poor proportionally than whites. Therefore, it should follow that blacks are more represented in prisons than whites. However, it is not necessarily because they are black.

[blake 3:17]

After all, the VAST majority of prisoners today are in jail because of crimes related to poverty (theft for example) or for drugs (which can also be seen as caused by poverty and the culture of poverty.) There are relatively few people in prison for things such as serial murder or other totally violent crimes unrelated to societal pressures.
It should be noted that poor people are more highly represented proportionally in prisons than their rich counterparts AND that blacks are more poor proportionally than whites. Therefore, it follow that blacks are more represented in prisons than whites.

There is tremendous racism in the sentencing process. You can't quite reduce race to class, but you're pretty right on the whole.

[MarxistMan]

Yeah i think it does, i think that people are a mirror of the place in which they live. And the USA is very boring country, very depressive, people in America are depressed, and any happy person who moves into USA will get depressed and bored as a result of living around boring, depressive negative people.

I am not a psychiatrist, so it would be another topic to study the causes of why people in America are so unfriendly, depressed and sad.

But like i said because most people in America are unfriendly, negative and depressed, it's real hard to be happy and positive because the excess of anti-social, unfriendly behaviour patterns of the people around us in America one way or the other have an effect on us and turn us into negative, passive, depressed unfriendly people.

by the same token, if Americans were happier, more positive and more motivated, most people in USA would be happier and more positive.

So I think that our behaviour is caused by the other people that live around us.

This is just my personal view on behaviour of people, and what influences them to behave in certain ways.

.


I asked the question quite provocatively, because I think it is an interesting question.

If different breeds of dogs are born with different types of behaviour, does that not challenge the argument that people too could have inherent behaviours, which were not necessarily produced from society?

If different breeds of dogs can be born more prone to anger than not, cannot humans be born more prone to anger than not?

One may say dogs are different to human beings, but that does not answer the question, and to answer the question, one must explain why the behaviour of a dog is not a product of society but the behaviour of a human is.

[¿Que?]

There is tremendous racism in the sentencing process. You can't quite reduce race to class, but you're pretty right on the whole.
Yeah, except that the term "culture of poverty" is sort of a charged term that I think is being misused by smk. Culture of poverty generally refers to those values, beliefs, and attitudes that poor people have, as opposed to the more well off. So to imply that the poor are in jail due to a culture of poverty is more or less to blame the poor for their own oppression. It's not the system's injustice and brutality that places them in conditions that give them very little options, rather, the culture of poverty thesis implies that the poor could stay out of jail if only their values systems changed. Personally, I cannot agree with this.

So for example, smk ascribes the cause of drug use to the "culture of poverty" as if those who are not poor do not use drugs in some capacity or other. The difference is not that poor people are doing drugs and the rich are not. The difference is that poor people are the ones being put in jail for drug use, while the rich get rehab.

[smk]

Yeah, except that the term "culture of poverty" is sort of a charged term that I think is being misused by smk. Culture of poverty generally refers to those values, beliefs, and attitudes that poor people have, as opposed to the more well off. So to imply that the poor are in jail due to a culture of poverty is more or less to blame the poor for their own oppression. It's not the system's injustice and brutality that places them in conditions that give them very little options, rather, the culture of poverty thesis implies that the poor could stay out of jail if only their values systems changed. Personally, I cannot agree with this.

So for example, smk ascribes the cause of drug use to the "culture of poverty" as if those who are not poor do not use drugs in some capacity or other. The difference is not that poor people are doing drugs and the rich are not. The difference is that poor people are the ones being put in jail for drug use, while the rich get rehab.

I think that you are misunderstanding my use of that term. By culture of poverty I mean the psychology of poverty and oppression .
And actually, it is a fact that, at least in the united states, you are significantly more likely to use drugs if you are poor than if you are rich.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/youthIncome/youthIncome.cfm
The SYSTEM creates this psychology of the oppressed/poor. I am certainly not blaming poor people's hard ships on their behavior alone. And again, this increase in drug use is a result of the psychology which is a result of the system/environment.



There is tremendous racism in the sentencing process. You can't quite reduce race to class, but you're pretty right on the whole.

I am not reducing race to class, I am just showing the obvious and unfortunate correlation between race and class in America.

[¿Que?]

I think that you are misunderstanding my use of that term. By culture of poverty I mean the psychology of poverty and oppression.
I took issue with the term as it is used in the academic literature. If you meant psychology of poverty, you should have said so. Psychology is not the same as culture.

And actually, it is a fact that, at least in the united states, you are significantly more likely to use drugs if you are poor than if you are rich.

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/youthIncome/youthIncome.cfm

If you look at the report, not in the highlights, you'll see that alcohol abuse is actually a little higher in the $20,000 - $74,999 range. Probably not a significant difference, but still, it doesn't affect the point I'm trying to make. Also, if you look at inhalants, they are pretty much even across the board. There are other statistics of interest if you look at the graph.

Let me just say that the distinction between legal and illegal substance abuse is entirely reactionary and based on a system of legality that serves the bourgeoisie against the oppressed. Therefore, there is no culture or psychology of poverty that inclines the poor towards substance abuse. The difference is qualitative, based on how and what substances are abused, not a quantitative difference that suggests that poor people are more prone to substance abuse.

But even if you could prove that a quantitative difference existed, you can't argue that it is due to culture or psychology, the former being the justification for the criminalization and indifference to the plight of the downtrodden, and the latter acting at an individual not systemic level.


The SYSTEM creates this psychology of the oppressed/poor. I am certainly not blaming poor people's hard ships on their behavior alone. And again, this increase in drug use is a result of the psychology which is a result of the system/environment.

I agree, to a certain extent. You have to show that there is a significant correlation between income and substance abuse, and I don't know if this survey does that. I find it strange for example, that they do an aggregate statistic for illicit drug use, but not one for an aggregate of substance abuse in general.

Furthermore, as I was discussing this recently with a friend, there are methodological problems with a survey of this sort. You don't know for sure why people respond to sensitive questions the way they do. Poverty stricken youth may stigmatize non-drug use and respond positively to a question asking if they've done a certain drug. In more affluent areas, drug use may be stigmatized more, and students will show a higher probability to respond in the negative, regardless of whether or not they've actually done the drug in question.

Anyway, here is the graph:
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/youthIncome/YouthUseandFamilyIncomefig2.jpg

Link to full report. (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/youthIncome/youthIncome.htm)

[apawllo]

However, it is not necessarily because they are black.

Do you know that for a fact, or are you just saying so to deflect white guilt?

[smk]

Do you know that for a fact, or are you just saying so to deflect white guilt?

Right. Maybe subconsciously I am just deflecting (even though I'm not even white.) However, rationally, I dont see how drug use can be a result of genetics, so I went with what I thought made the most sense. Care to explain why Africans are more genetically predisposed to substance abuse than Asians?

Most things that people say on here are based on rationality alone. This question would be impossible to answer if not for conjecture.