This is not related, but I am steadily finding people on Medium with modest profiles but with not so modest opinions, especially when concerning human nature. I realize people are entitled to their opinions; however, these single to two sentenced soundbites generalizing the human species as such and such is really bringing the intelligence down to Facebook meme level. Challenging them in their views is unrewarding to say the least. They are so certain they are right, and their opinions need to be said without reproach or scrutiny, for recommends of course. I cannot say that I, myself, am above it all, but I do tend to try to be diligent.
Someone said it is human nature to not give up any kind of power willingly. However, authoritarians do this all the time. Religious communities submit to their gods. Etc. Etc. Making such a statement implies a certain level of ambition and avarice most people just do not possess.
In his other responses, he said there was some cost benefit analysis going on, and mass hysteria during a mob riot or patriotic fervor is some sort of evolutionary survival mechanism. He gave no evidence to support his opinions. He only gave links to papers which supports the medical definition for hysteria and something describing stress-induced and fear disorders and the amygdala and how these things evolved in the human brain. But he tied none of it together in a manner which supported his opinions. It was not even related to the conversation. It was as if he did a quick search and pulled sources which he believed confirmed his opinions. Except, his opinions were so general and vague while the sources he provided were very specific and detailed. Also, his responses felt rushed, as if he were rushing to the defense. At some point, I had to give it up. It felt as if we were talking over each other. The conversation was going no where, and I had chores to do.
What I wanted to point out was that human nature is rather complex and cannot be reduced to a mere two or three lines of text. How much of that analysis was scientific, and how much of it was hubris? Just because some trait came about through evolution does not mean it has some sort of survival advantage or an actual purpose.
Assumptions based on paper abstracts are not what I call good scientific analysis.
I wanted him to support his opinions effectively and offer a decent rebuttal, but he failed, in my opinion, to deliver. Plus, he made some rather annoying grammatical spelling and punctuation errors. I expected better from a database administrator.
Face-to-face encounters at a coffee shop, in a library, or at a university are wonderful for these types of conversations. You have a good idea of the company you keep. So, you can expect what kind of conversation you will have and what will be the benefit from that conversation. Here on Medium, there is a bit of mystery involved, and some people are overly sensitized to criticism and debate after making it here from their weary digital travels from rockier social media shores. The material benefits one can receive may not outweigh the effort. Yet people give in. They want to connect and be heard. That alone is reason enough.
Communication is a rather complex and complicated problem. Is it not?