Why do you disagree, what is human nature then?

I think human nature is comparatively static. Human behaviour depends on many factors, such as social standing, learning, security, and political inclusion.

Human nature is a range of possible human behaviours, which all humans are capable of exhibiting - such as greed, anger, violence, compassion, charity, empathy etc...

The circumstances and social cues which indicate whether a given behaviour is appropriate at a given time depend on human culture - be it political, cultural, or economic. Humans develop the ability to distinguish these cues, and are thus effectively controlled by the environment.

I don't know how we can discuss this topic if human nature has no real definition.

human nature ≅ how humans 'naturally' behave. I guess this question/definition is the topic i hope to discuss.

Are there many here who disagree with my attempted definition?

It's Lord of the Flies time, folks.

I would think 'human nature' has to be universal, something so unequivocally basic and instinctual that all humans share this characteristic or behavior, regardless of culture, race, or upbringing.

"Human nature is a range of possible human behaviours, which all humans are capable of exhibiting - such as greed, anger, violence, compassion, charity, empathy etc..."

I'd think this sort of definition, being so general, makes human nature largely irrelevant in terms of political theory.

That's not to say that the concept isn't worth discussing, though. Since it's so general, however, maybe instead we should be talking about what is outside of human nature?

"human nature ≅ how humans 'naturally' behave."

I assume this is a simplification of the earlier definition, and includes possible behaviors for all possible environments/circumstances. In which case I don't have any problem with it.

I think that definition is non-falsifiable if we're trying to figure out what role human nature plays in human behavior.

If human nature is human behavior, then our explanatory variable is the same as the outcome of interest.

I guess the question is, what sort of evidence would count for human nature having changed?

Human behavior are "symptoms" of human nature, if you will accept that term.

For example, the nature of an AUTOMOBILE in the simplest terms to accelerate and stop and turn, in basic terms. It's nature encompasses all these attributes. It's behavior can not be all of these at once...behavior is a subset of all possible attributes.

I think the same applies to human beings. There is a range of attributes that define humans...and behavior is contained within these. they are "related" (nature and behavior)...but...well, you get my point.

I mean if you're making definitions that encompass the entire range of possible human behaviors then definitionally you're setting up a situation where your argument is non-falsifiable. How could we possibly get human behavior that is outside the range of possible human behaviors?

If we define human nature as a range of possible behaviors, though, we can't ever really figure out the full extent of that range. So it's impossible to tell if it's changed.

Just because you can't figure out the whole range of human behaviors doesn't mean it isn't a valid definition. You can also *exclude* behavior from human nature -- such as performing magic, or flying...these do not fall within human nature to do these things.

To Putin's complaint, of course you can't get behavior that is outside of human behavior. Thank you for that brilliant insight. And the SUM TOTAL of human behaviors is HUMAN NATURE. Not to hard to figure out. What else would you call the sum total of possible human behaviors, if not Human Nature? After, the term "Nature" alone does what? It encompasses everything that is in nature...redundant? Perhaps....but true none the less.

But I suppose here is where the next question lies -- I consider human nature to go beyond our actions, and into ...love, hate, anger, etc....and then beyond emotions, you can add "driving forces" (for lack of a better term) such as creativity, slothfulness, lust, etc.

Then it's pointless to have this conversation. If human nature is everything humans have done or do, then there is no point to talk about it changing. Human nature is a meaningless concept.

Or is human nature the exclusion of actions, and only love, hate, anger, lust, creativity, greed, etc...? All the things that motivate physical action?

Putin -- you once again MISS the point. First...this is a discussion....Second, READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE, assmunch. Human Nature is NOT meaningless, because I can not perform all the actions of a BIRD, you twit. For the jackass that likes to tell everyone how stupid they are and how enlightened you are, your reading skills pretty much suck...probably because you are always looking for the opportunity to insult people and try to look superior...at which you completely fail.

Try it again, Putin...go READ what was written.

That's not human nature, that's a list of emotions.

I'm not insulting anyone. The point of the OP was to discuss whether human nature changes or not. The arguments provided have simply asserted it doesn't, by concocting a definition that makes it impossible for human nature to change short of humans growing wings or a tail or deciding to eat nothing but rocks or something.

Also, who are we to say that in the right circumstances humans can't grow wings or tails? Maybe we just haven't seen those circumstances.

'But I suppose here is where the next question lies -- I consider human nature to go beyond our actions, and into ...love, hate, anger, etc....and then beyond emotions, you can add "driving forces" (for lack of a better term) such as creativity, slothfulness, lust, etc.'

Yes, but I think the driving forces are something which are not merely interal things - such as creativity, and slothfulness, but they include environmental effects, such as social connections, profit-motives, security, and reciprocal altruism.

You can't separate and individuals behaviour from the society in which that individual exists.

'The point of the OP was to discuss whether human nature changes or not.' - not just whether it changes, what it is. We can't discuss the static or dynamic qualities of human nature unless we have a good definition with which to start.

I would argue that within a generation human behaviour will change rather a lot, while human nature will remain largely static.

'You can't separate and individuals behaviour from the society in which that individual exists.'

And this is a point in itself - part of my definition above - you have to consider not just the individual but the system to which it belongs - the system which shapes how the individual develops.

You can't expect the same behaviour from two individuals shaped by different cultures. Two who developed in different societies. You thus have to consider the important to political/economic theory how humans will behave given the society to which they belong. You have to take into account the entire system rather than simplifying to a single human nature - shared by all.

Thus how can you blame an individual for their behaviour when it is a product of their environment - how can you attribute to 'human nature' the behaviour of any given individual without taking into account the social institutions which shaped that behaviour?

"We can't discuss the static or dynamic qualities of human nature unless we have a good definition with which to start."

And we still don't have one.

human nature is dependent on genetics, to that extent it does change but not fast enough to see in a lifetime, unlike culture, technology or the environment

As long as the Nature/Nurture debat hasnt ended, nobody can give an answer on what your asking.

2ndwhiteline said: "I would think 'human nature' has to be universal, something so unequivocally basic and instinctual that all humans share this characteristic or behavior, regardless of culture, race, or upbringing"

+1 I think this definition is on the money. Human nature is the bit let over when we remove culture.

I'll include a quote from a TMS guidebook I have, "Evolutionary Psycology" which outline some characteristics which make up human nature:
"In On Human Nature, Wilson argued that humans have several evolved behavioral
tendencies, including the aforementioned ability to acquire and use language,
personal and social aggression (including a tendency toward warfare),
the establishment and maintenance of dominance hierarchies, role differentiation
on the basis of gender, mating systems that include considerable nonreproductive
sexual behavior, altruistic behavior and social cooperation, and a
tendency toward religious behavior and belief."

The key phrase above is "evolved behavioral tendencies". If you don't accept evolution then replace the word "evolved" with God-given.

'God-given Psycology' - heh

oh, and i'm pretty sure that even the most adherent creationists believe in evolution on the micro-scales we're talking about here (ie the past 10,000 years)

Perhaps that takes the form of genetic drift which will over time favour one particular social strategy over another. Perhaps males with more testosterone will be deselected because muscle growth isn't as important when you can use guns to kill people with far less muscle use than it once took...

Why are we talking micro-scales? Surely human behavior is rooted in our entire evolutionary history, not just the last 10,000 years.

As I would interpret it, human nature would refer to those inbuilt ways in which humans overwhelmingly naturally tend to act, even though it would be perfectly possible (physically, biologically) for them to act in other ways.

For example: almost anywhere you go in time or space, if you walk up to a guy who's eating dinner, yank away his food, splash his drink in his face, and walk away eating his dinner, he'll very likely get angry and, if he's big enough / you're small enough for him to have a chance, will start a fight with you. Or let's say, at the least, he'll get really angry. He wouldn't have to. He could just laugh and walk away hungry, looking for other food. He could hug you and thank you for teaching him a lesson.

But, overwhelmingly, he won't. He'll respond in that specific way, and that's human nature.

Culture obviously is super important, though. One can imagine that in a society that emphasized honor, respect, and perhaps fighting, he would fight you period, regardless of whether he had a chance. On the other hand, in an extremely deferential society, he might get very angry but be reticent to fight at all. Either of those would just be modifications of the innate reaction, though, and you still wouldn't see the bizarre alternatives listed above.

I guess in my opinion, human nature is what CAUSES humans to act. It's not necessarily what actions people take. In fact, I'd say that the actions people take are more demonstrative of human behavior.

So, ultimately, I'd say that the actions we take are examples of human behavior. When we view these actions as a collective whole, we can begin to catch a glimpse of the substance of human nature. Human nature isn't a random collection of actions; instead, it is the motivating force behind those actions. I feel like its more the instinctive nature than anything else, something that transcends culture even.

Obviously, I'm no expert in this field, but I thought I'd put in my two cents worth.

so, obviously one human behaviour which is fairly rare is suicide. Is that then part of human nature or something which is imposed by social situations on a person (as an attempted escape mechanism)?

@putin......SO, BASICALLY.....until someone says "HUMAN NATURE = SOCIALISM" you are going to say EVEYONE IF WRONG? Am i right, bitch? You are truly a fucking moron.

Is suicide part of human nature? I think "human nature" is more about the general "in-built" structures which help drive behavior in conjunction with other factors such as culture, rather than specific instances of behavior. Is my typing this post "human nature"?- the desire to communicate certainly is, but the medium of a computer connected to the internet is obviously not a part of human nature (although the ability to use tools does seem to be part of human nature).

The ability to use tools and also to pick up new skills even as an adult is part of human nature...

The instinct to protect onself from harm is, i believe, the part of human nature at play in suicide. Though in a completely twisted way.

Sorry to jump in without reading the whole thread, but "Human Nature vs Human Behaviour" don't have to be viewed as separate things. For example if a caveman observed that a good number of his group became ill after eating poison ivy, he would probably stop eating it. Today some people may be coming less religious because they have observed that religions bring conflict and other people may become more religious because the see a breakdown of society and put this down to people turning from religion. In all these cases, stopping eating poison ivy, becoming more or less religious can be seen to be human nature and human behaviour. They are not separate.

Maniac, i'd say these three different behaviours were each expressions of the one aspect of human nature (something of inductive reasoning perhaps) and that the behaviours are different based on environmental/cultural factors.