Habits of the Wealthiest People

[writser]

As far as the Loch Ness monster goes, does this specific monster appear as a human longing that all cultures in all parts of the world in every time period attempt to worship in some way or another?

 

No, but you have shown nicely in your previous posts an alternative explanation for why humans tend to have this longing. The need to 'make sense' of the world. To explain things. Our brains are hard-wired to do so - it's hard for us to accept that we are nothing special and that our lives are not special. Why? Because that isn't a very good trait as seen from an evolutionary view. A much better evolutionary trait is believing that one or more gods exists. That way you can cope easier with adversity and spread your genes by killing infidels while having as much children as possible. Surprise: that sounds remarkably like any major religion. On a similar note: why do you think no large religion exists that discourages having children and encourages suicide / abortions / euthanasia? Because religions are also subject to survival of the fittest.

 

Assuming "the gods" did intervene, why are they "assholes"? Because they didn't intervene sooner? Remember, true evil doesn't exist with your worldview.

 

That's the classic trick in the theist cookbook: bashing atheists because they don't know what's good and what's evil. Tiresome ... I just think they are assholes based upon my own moral values and those of the society I live in. I don't care for gods that don't agree with me that what happened in WWII was bad. And that's good enough for me. I don't need an paedophile or a dusty book to tell me what's right and what's not.

[coc]

Remember, true evil doesn't exist with your worldview.

 

I'm just going to address this horseshit since no one else is calling you on it. That is not anyone's worldview but yours. Repeating it a bunch of times is not going to make it true. There are morals independent of a belief in deity. I don't go around murdering people and kittens senselessly because that is not the sort of behavior conducive of a world I want to live in. And If I don't want to live in that world, why would I propagate it? That would be strange and illogical. It's that simple. There is no E=mc2 reasoning needed. Morally, we act in a way that we'd like to see others act. Immanuel Kant addressed this 250 years ago. Same reason I don't cheat people, lie to get ahead, or beat children. It would lead to misery for the people I care about. I think an action that creates "net misery" is an evil one.

 

And to head off your "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it" argument about cheating on your spouse: Yes, the tree makes a noise. Anyone with any judgment realizes that cheating eventually leads to martial trouble about 99% of the time, no matter what false hypothetical you choose to set up. If you want to invoke Nassim Taleb, let's invoke what he calls the "Platonism." You're setting up this imaginary ideal world where people's actions don't have consequences, and trying to "trap" the non-believers based on it. Well, I don't live in that world and neither do you. I think morals are absolutely, 100% above all, practical. It's not useless academic blathering.

 

Remember, Ben Franklin said "honesty is the best policy" not "honesty is the most moral policy." Honesty works. As do other obviously sound morals.

[lschmidt]

+1

 

I enjoy the flow of thought and research and this board, admittedly selfishly, as I have not been contributing.

 

It strikes me that some of the arguments made on this thread are in stark opposition to the usual standards and culture of the board. I think this is particularly true with respect to the depth of erudition, research, data gathering, and information synthesis that is presented in other threads. The discussion of morality, in particular, lacks a proper study and integration of the available information. Evolutionary psychology has been around since Darwin in the 19th century and has been meticulously refined since the 1970s. There are thousands of studies of the neuroscience of morality; many are elegant, convincing, and reproducible. Yet, this entire mountain of scientific data is being ignored in the volleys of emotional discussion. I note how carefully people read 10Ks and conference call transcripts. I would suggest refraining from the frivolous banter about the source of morality (and similar assertions) until a rigorous judgment can be synthesized from the abundant literature that already exists (so it may reach a parity with people's rigor of study in financial matters).

[Guest]

Remember, true evil doesn't exist with your worldview.

 

I'm just going to address this horseshit since no one else is calling you on it. That is not anyone's worldview but yours. Repeating it a bunch of times is not going to make it true. There are morals independent of a belief in deity. I don't go around murdering people and kittens senselessly because that is not the sort of behavior conducive of a world I want to live in. And If I don't want to live in that world, why would I propagate it? That would be strange and illogical. It's that simple. There is no E=mc2 reasoning needed. Morally, we act in a way that we'd like to see others act. Immanuel Kant addressed this 250 years ago. Same reason I don't cheat people, lie to get ahead, or beat children. It would lead to misery for the people I care about. I think an action that creates "net misery" is an evil one.

 

And to head off your "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it" argument about cheating on your spouse: Yes, the tree makes a noise. Anyone with any judgment realizes that cheating eventually leads to martial trouble about 99% of the time, no matter what false hypothetical you choose to set up. If you want to invoke Nassim Taleb, let's invoke what he calls the "Platonism." You're setting up this imaginary ideal world where people's actions don't have consequences, and trying to "trap" the non-believers based on it. Well, I don't live in that world and neither do you. I think morals are absolutely, 100% above all, practical. It's not useless academic blathering.

 

Remember, Ben Franklin said "honesty is the best policy" not "honesty is the most moral policy." Honesty works. As do other obviously sound morals.

 

Have you read any of Dawkins' books? He readily admits to my above sentence. You are genetically programmed to think "evil" exists but it doesn't. In a somewhat similar vein, you are also genetically programed to think you should have as much fat and sugar as you can. We know that isn't the best for your material well being (fitness). My argument is that, if God doesn't exist, lying and cheating, selectively, can also be a big benefit toward gaining material wealth. We just need to overcome the evolutionary instincts to do so.

 

 

[rkbabang]

Remember, true evil doesn't exist with your worldview.

 

I'm just going to address this horseshit since no one else is calling you on it. That is not anyone's worldview but yours. Repeating it a bunch of times is not going to make it true. There are morals independent of a belief in deity. I don't go around murdering people and kittens senselessly because that is not the sort of behavior conducive of a world I want to live in. And If I don't want to live in that world, why would I propagate it? That would be strange and illogical. It's that simple. There is no E=mc2 reasoning needed. Morally, we act in a way that we'd like to see others act. Immanuel Kant addressed this 250 years ago. Same reason I don't cheat people, lie to get ahead, or beat children. It would lead to misery for the people I care about. I think an action that creates "net misery" is an evil one.

 

And to head off your "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it" argument about cheating on your spouse: Yes, the tree makes a noise. Anyone with any judgment realizes that cheating eventually leads to martial trouble about 99% of the time, no matter what false hypothetical you choose to set up. If you want to invoke Nassim Taleb, let's invoke what he calls the "Platonism." You're setting up this imaginary ideal world where people's actions don't have consequences, and trying to "trap" the non-believers based on it. Well, I don't live in that world and neither do you. I think morals are absolutely, 100% above all, practical. It's not useless academic blathering.

 

Remember, Ben Franklin said "honesty is the best policy" not "honesty is the most moral policy." Honesty works. As do other obviously sound morals.

 

Have you read any of Dawkins' books? He readily admits to my above sentence. You are genetically programmed to think "evil" exists but it doesn't. In a somewhat similar vein, you are also genetically programed to think you should have as much fat and sugar as you can. We know that isn't the best for your material well being (fitness). My argument is that, if God doesn't exist, lying and cheating, selectively, can also be a big benefit toward gaining material wealth. We just need to overcome the evolutionary instincts to do so.

 

But by doing so you are putting your life at risk as others try to defend themselves from you and refuse to deal with you in any peaceful way.  I think that you will find it wouldn't be a very good survival strategy for an individual nor a species.  Try starting a business where you selectively lie to and cheat your customers.  It won't be morality that puts you out of business it will be your (former) customers and your lack of new ones.

 

 

[coc]

Have you read any of Dawkins' books? He readily admits to my above sentence. You are genetically programmed to think "evil" exists but it doesn't. In a somewhat similar vein, you are also genetically programed to think you should have as much fat and sugar as you can. We know that isn't the best for your material well being (fitness). My argument is that, if God doesn't exist, lying and cheating, selectively, can also be a big benefit toward gaining material wealth. We just need to overcome the evolutionary instincts to do so.

 

Yes I have read Dawkins. I think he's be apopletic if he knew how you were using his work.

 

I think you have your argument basically backwards. We have evolved to occasionally connive, cheat, steal, etc. to propagate our genes. Men often lie to women and women to men for this reason. (See Robert Wright.) But, through culture, we overcome that various ways. Shame being a big one. While you might argue "why bother trying to overcome it?" -- again, because it doesn't work. It creates net misery. We don't need to lie and manipulate to propagate our genes.

 

There are also good evolutionary reasons for cooperation, honesty, altruism...you know, basic good morality. As "lschmidt" said, there is good work out there on this subject.

 

And "rkbabang" makes an excellent point which I can predict you will try to refute by saying "Yeah, but I mean only cheating when you can get away with it" -- to which I respond as I did above. You're setting up a false ideal and destroying it. The world doesn't work that way. Cheating has all kinds of ill effects, even if you temporarily have more wealth. And those who practice it eventually tend to get what they deserve, often creating major problems for the rest of us in the time being.

[writser]

I find the entire line of reasoning to be strange. If deities do not exist we just need to overcome our instincts so we can steal, lie and cheat for material benefit... Excuse me? Why should we suddenly do that? As coc pointed out: that's the inverse of what Richard Dawkins ment :) .

[Kraven]

Hey everybody, who do you think is better between Republicans and Democrats? 

[rkbabang]

Have you read any of Dawkins' books? He readily admits to my above sentence. You are genetically programmed to think "evil" exists but it doesn't. In a somewhat similar vein, you are also genetically programed to think you should have as much fat and sugar as you can. We know that isn't the best for your material well being (fitness). My argument is that, if God doesn't exist, lying and cheating, selectively, can also be a big benefit toward gaining material wealth. We just need to overcome the evolutionary instincts to do so.

 

Yes I have read Dawkins. I think he's be apopletic if he knew how you were using his work.

 

I think you have your argument basically backwards. We have evolved to occasionally connive, cheat, steal, etc. to propagate our genes. Men often lie to women and women to men for this reason. (See Robert Wright.) But, through culture, we overcome that various ways. Shame being a big one. While you might argue "why bother trying to overcome it?" -- again, because it doesn't work. It creates net misery. We don't need to lie and manipulate to propagate our genes.

 

There are also good evolutionary reasons for cooperation, honesty, altruism...you know, basic good morality. As "lschmidt" said, there is good work out there on this subject.

 

And "rkbabang" makes an excellent point which I can predict you will try to refute by saying "Yeah, but I mean only cheating when you can get away with it" -- to which I respond as I did above. You're setting up a false ideal and destroying it. The world doesn't work that way. Cheating has all kinds of ill effects, even if you temporarily have more wealth. And those who practice it eventually tend to get what they deserve, often creating major problems for the rest of us in the time being.

 

And to add what you said.  Yes, some people will lie, cheat, and steal, and get away with it, and benefit from doing so.  But they are taking a huge risk by doing so.  This is true in primitive societies as well as our own.  Human beings can't live (very well) by themselves alone in the wilderness.  They need others.  Doing something that has the possibility of loosing the trust and support of your fellow man is a very real danger.  In primitive societies it could mean expulsion to almost certain death.  In our society it can mean a "criminal record" which will make many aspects of survival in life more difficult for you.  Humans make these calculations all of the time.  Yes it is tempting to take something that is just sitting there when no one is looking, but at what cost?  Most of the time the possible harm far outweighs the potential gain.

The people who ignore this calculation and always do what seems beneficial in the short term are likely not going to be very successful in life and will be among the poorest in society.    Even those who are very good at theft (Bernie Madoff comes to mind) are living under a constant threat of being found out and having their lives destroyed.  The stress alone is reason enough not to engage in such activities.

 

[rkbabang]

Hey everybody, who do you think is better between Republicans and Democrats? 

 

Sort of like asking who is better Hitler or Stalin?

 

[coc]

Hey everybody, who do you think is better between Republicans and Democrats?

 

This made me laugh pretty hard.

[alwaysinvert]

Hey everybody, who do you think is better between Republicans and Democrats? 

 

Sort of like asking who is better Hitler or Stalin?

Hitler is the better, obviously. If you like Stalin you have to like vodka and we can't have drunks walking around the streets. We should all be Nazis because Hitler was a teetotaler. What's to stop you from being a drunk if you are not a member of the NSDAP?

[rkbabang]

Hey everybody, who do you think is better between Republicans and Democrats? 

 

Sort of like asking who is better Hitler or Stalin?

Hitler is the better, obviously. If you like Stalin you have to like vodka and we can't have drunks walking around the streets. We should all be Nazis because Hitler was a teetotaler. What's to stop you from being a drunk if you are not a member of the NSDAP?

 

Hitler is my pick as well for three reason.  1) I'm not a huge fan of Vodka.  2) Stalin killed more people.  and 3) I'm not Jewish so I'd be safer under Hitler, Stalin killed just anyone.

 

 

 

[randomep]

The Chinese girls pop up surprisingly often here. Sanjeev probably receives a 'management fee' from them. A modest one, obviously.

 

It exists where you are also? I thought it only shows up in my machine because they've learned my habits from looking at my cookies/history.

[randomep]

Why are we talking about religion under a thread called "Habits of the Wealthiest People"?

 

Because of the saying: "religion exists so that the poor people don't kill the rich"

[merkhet]

Why are we talking about religion under a thread called "Habits of the Wealthiest People"?

 

Because of the saying: "religion exists so that the poor people don't kill the rich"

 

Upon reflection, I suspect it's because people are bored, and there's not much to do in the markets right now...

[randomep]

Why are we talking about religion under a thread called "Habits of the Wealthiest People"?

 

Because of the saying: "religion exists so that the poor people don't kill the rich"

 

Upon reflection, I suspect it's because people are bored, and there's not much to do in the markets right now...

 

I love this forum.

[Guest]

I find the entire line of reasoning to be strange. If deities do not exist we just need to overcome our instincts so we can steal, lie and cheat for material benefit... Excuse me? Why should we suddenly do that? As coc pointed out: that's the inverse of what Richard Dawkins ment :) .

 

Again, I stated selectively doing those things. For instance, to close a sale on an unsuspecting prospect - especially if there are no ramifications. I've worked with some shady people (at an old employer) and they did that. And, most of it was legal. My premise is simply this: Taking the high road, when no one is looking, means absolutely jack unless that high road is truly "good" and not a personal preference.

[Guest]

Why are we talking about religion under a thread called "Habits of the Wealthiest People"?

 

Because of the saying: "religion exists so that the poor people don't kill the rich"

 

Upon reflection, I suspect it's because people are bored, and there's not much to do in the markets right now...

 

I love this forum.

 

I agree with both of you guys. haha

[coc]

I find the entire line of reasoning to be strange. If deities do not exist we just need to overcome our instincts so we can steal, lie and cheat for material benefit... Excuse me? Why should we suddenly do that? As coc pointed out: that's the inverse of what Richard Dawkins ment :) .

 

Again, I stated selectively doing those things. For instance, to close a sale on an unsuspecting prospect - especially if there are no ramifications. I've worked with some shady people (at an old employer) and they did that. And, most of it was legal. My premise is simply this: Taking the high road, when no one is looking, means absolutely jack unless that high road is truly "good" and not a personal preference.

 

You're doing it again. Platonifying the real world. Someone is always looking. It's reasoning like this that gets an overwhelming amount of its adherents in trouble. You're saying "when there are no ramifications." I'd respectively tell you, in the world the rest of us heathens live in, there is no such thing.

 

Cheating an unsuspecting victim is not an isolated incident. The rules of human psychology tell us that cheating once usually leads to more cheating. The consistency principle and basic operant conditioning (rewards) ensure we will likely do it again ourselves. Envy, social proof and the rise of a Serpico effect tells us our peers and co-workers are more likely to cheat in turn. A variety of effects like further operant conditioning and basic denial often lead us to cheat more brazenly. Etc.

 

And it's the ignorance of this million year old psychology, deep within us, that plays such a big role in stupid mistakes. So no, taking the high road does not mean "absolutely jack." It means a whole lot, and in a very practical way.

[Guest]

coc,

 

Here is where I stand on a personal level. I'm not trying to brag here but I tend to lead a more moral life than even most religious folks. For instance, some people I knew used to say I was like a "puritan from the 1600s" because...I wouldn't cheat on my girlfriend. This was when I was agnostic. I tend to be way too honest and other things. Another example, a Christian friend of mine lied to a stranger to save $5 a while back. $5! Granted, I have my own "sins" as all of us do, but like I said (and perhaps I'm biased here) but this moral compass of mine tends to put me in a less than ideal position (materially anyway).

 

Through a ton of research (both theistic and atheistic views) and "soul" searching, I've determined that this "inner voice" is either 1) evolutionary instincts that are on equal level to their instincts - as in their view is neither more right nor more wrong than my view (after all, they are both just byproducts of the evolutionary process) or 2) being faithful and honest does "matter" on a higher level than materialism. As in, there is inherently something "good" about doing the  "right" thing. If there is a true goodness, there must be a higher law giver to grant that goodness. Otherwise, this goodness is simply illusory.

 

I have a feeling of "right" and "wrong" deeper than most people (based on my life experiences and conversations I've had with others). It also costs me sometimes. If there isn't true goodness out there, what's the point? Right, there isn't one. And, honestly, up until about 2 years ago I was happy being agnostic and doing what I felt was "right." Then, I started questioning things.

[coc]

coc,

 

Here is where I stand on a personal level. I'm not trying to brag here but I tend to lead a more moral life than even most religious folks. For instance, some people I knew used to say I was like a "puritan from the 1600s" because...I wouldn't cheat on my girlfriend. This was when I was agnostic. I tend to be way too honest and other things. Another example, a Christian friend of mine lied to a stranger to save $5 a while back. $5! Granted, I have my own "sins" as all of us do, but like I said (and perhaps I'm biased here) but this moral compass of mine tends to put me in a less than ideal position (materially anyway).

 

Through a ton of research (both theistic and atheistic views) and "soul" searching, I've determined that this "inner voice" is either 1) evolutionary instincts that are on equal level to their instincts - as in their view is neither more right nor more wrong than my view (after all, they are both just byproducts of the evolutionary process) or 2) being faithful and honest does "matter" on a higher level than materialism. As in, there is inherently something "good" about doing the  "right" thing. If there is a true goodness, there must be a higher law giver to grant that goodness. Otherwise, this goodness is simply illusory.

 

I have a feeling of "right" and "wrong" deeper than most people (based on my life experiences and conversations I've had with others). It also costs me sometimes. If there isn't true goodness out there, what's the point? Right, there isn't one. And, honestly, up until about 2 years ago I was happy being agnostic and doing what I felt was "right." Then, I started questioning things.

 

stahley,

 

I respect your choice to believe in a greater force. I do. I hope you have noticed in my writing, I take no stance against one choosing to believe in a higher power. And you know, I can just tell, I can write until my fingers are sore about human psychology, and about the morality we've developed through cultural and biological evolution, and its practical effects on society, and so on and so on. But you truly seem to believe that there is no sense in creating an effective civilization unless there is some greater power to answer to. So I am going to leave this alone. I think your heart is in the right place, so I wish you luck.

 

[RichardGibbons]

As far as miracles go, how do you define that? I'd guess that many atheists would agree that us being here is a miracle (as in an incredibly, incredibly low probability of an event). I've heard that the chances of us being here and the fine-tuning of the universe is something like 1 in something more than a trillion. In order to get around that the fine tuning we have the multiverse. The universe only "looks" fine tuned because we happen to be in the one, out of the trillions, that set up for life.  Granted, there isn't next to no evidence for that either.

 

I think the multiverse argument is reasonable, but I don't think you need it to posit life.  If the universe has been around for an infinite period of time and there's a close to infinite or infinite number of stars and planets, a one in a trillion chance is going to happen eventually.

 

A second way of refuting your argument is to take a million numbers.  Randomly select 50 of those numbers.  What's the odds that those numbers came up in that particular order?  Well, it's incredibly small, much smaller than your 1 in a trillion. 

 

So is that a miracle?  I don't think so.  The problem is that you can't argue some outcome like that after it's happened, and say, "because that outcome has a low probability, something special must have happened".

 

Basically, outcomes are constantly happening. Each one always has an almost infinitely small chance of it happening, yet it does because some outcome has to happen.

[jouni1]

A second way of refuting your argument is to take a million numbers.  Randomly select 50 of those numbers.  What's the odds that those numbers came up in that particular order?  Well, it's incredibly small, much smaller than your 1 in a trillion. 

 

So is that a miracle?  I don't think so.  The problem is that you can't argue some outcome like that after it's happened, and say, "because that outcome has a low probability, something special must have happened".

 

Basically, outcomes are constantly happening. Each one always has an almost infinitely small chance of it happening, yet it does because some outcome has to happen.

so, are you saying people getting hit by lightning aren't actually cursed?

[alwaysinvert]

As far as miracles go, how do you define that? I'd guess that many atheists would agree that us being here is a miracle (as in an incredibly, incredibly low probability of an event). I've heard that the chances of us being here and the fine-tuning of the universe is something like 1 in something more than a trillion. In order to get around that the fine tuning we have the multiverse. The universe only "looks" fine tuned because we happen to be in the one, out of the trillions, that set up for life.  Granted, there isn't next to no evidence for that either.

 

I think the multiverse argument is reasonable, but I don't think you need it to posit life.  If the universe has been around for an infinite period of time and there's a close to infinite or infinite number of stars and planets, a one in a trillion chance is going to happen eventually.

 

A second way of refuting your argument is to take a million numbers.  Randomly select 50 of those numbers.  What's the odds that those numbers came up in that particular order?  Well, it's incredibly small, much smaller than your 1 in a trillion. 

 

So is that a miracle?  I don't think so.  The problem is that you can't argue some outcome like that after it's happened, and say, "because that outcome has a low probability, something special must have happened".

 

Basically, outcomes are constantly happening. Each one always has an almost infinitely small chance of it happening, yet it does because some outcome has to happen.

 

Yes, this is an extremely common misconception.

 

Getting dealt a royal straight flush is a couple of hundred thousands to 1 (depending on the game you are playing), but it isn't anymore unlikely to be dealt that than any other possible poker hand. But what you are going to remember are 1) royals and 2) near-misses.

 

Near-misses of course are used all over the place, either manufactured or sought out. Girls use it when turning down boys to make them feel better, or just to keep their options open (let's just be friends, I'm not at the right place right now etc). Slots and lotteries use them all the time, to the point where there actually is nothing but near-misses and jackpots. Extreme sports are all about close calls and the rushes they engender.

 

Intellectually, all but the most simple people knows that it's the brain playing tricks on us, if they only think about it for a short while.

 

But anyhow, the just-so argument for creation is stupid. With cosmological deep time, we have no idea how many 'experiments' have been run. Our universe could very well be inevitable and thus wholly unremarkable from an odds perspective.