Take da poll foo'

[Error of Logic]

Heh, I would do any of those things short of permanently damaging someone (or me) or anything illegal. Especially considering my annual budget of $400.

You say it shows will power or morals or whatever to not take the money? I would say it takes a lot of will power to commit such a perverted act. Think about 'fear factor'. We look at the people who refuse to eat the moose testacles as weak. Just a thought.

I don't. I look at people who are willing to allow themselves to be debased on public T.V. as the weak ones. Sure, they got some cash. Big whoop. Were they in terrible need when they shoveled pig anuses down their throats? Couldn't have been; they were young and pretty enough to be allowed on television. So, what reason do they have for doing things that most people would agree are sane and/or disgusting (yes, I know, cultural conditioning, et cetera, people would still say it is)? What valid reason?
Sometimes there's a charity involved, I know. That's nice. It would've been nicer if the money had just been shared around charities, rather than making people jump through hoops for it.

...

Sorry, slightly rantish. But I despise those "fear factor" and "big brother"-type shows. Despise them. But then I generally despise things that turn people into a combination of sock puppets and lab rats.

[Rand Al'tor]

That's where the mental state and prior conditioning of the person in question comes in... When Rand Al'tor suggests that "full on scat" would be a suitable substitute for bisexuals, it tells us more about his (I'm betting) opinion (almost assuredly unfounded) of homosexual sex than anything else... I seriously doubt you'd find many lesbians or bisexuals who'd agree. That's why I'm willing to bet he's a straight male... Crossing gender lines doesn't rate anywhere near scat on the squick scale for most females, regardless of sexuality.

ID say I was bisexual, right? Heck, I don't know how homo/heterosexuals feel about sex against gender, so I probably overdid it. Particularly BECAUSE I have no idea what it feels like to 'plow on the wrong side of the field' I play both sides.

Still, to illustrate why I find such an offer morally reprehensible, scat seems like a better example. Offer money to someone to do something he's not inclined, or actively doesn't want to do.

Just clearing up, I don't think you'd do it on a 'power trip' Honor. I have the feeling you'd do it to try to get the stigma of sex, and out of irritation to people encouraging the remains of the Victorian age. But honestly, I think your actions would cause more harm than good. Some people keep sex as an intimate, personal thing, and hold great personal and subjective value to it, without judging those who do not. They might say no, and they might indeed forever worry about that, and they might indeed end up having nights of restless sleep when the bill-collector passes by. Because you'd have done that.

Doesn't sound like a happy-fun time at all.

I thank you for the better angels you've placed on my shoulder, but unfortunately, I don't that much deserve them. I wouldn't be doing it primarily for any of those reasons, although I would consider them. The primary reason I'd do it would be just to prove I'm right or wrong... I am possessed of the opinion that I have an extremely good grasp of human nature and behavioral psychology, and I want to either prove or disprove my theories.

It'd be pure research, done for no better or worse reasons than any other scientific experiment, and any guilt I might feel over the fallout of the experiment would be rationalized that way... Not that I'd feel much. The subjects enter and leave the situation with free will just as much intact as it ever was, although they may understand it's nature a little better. If they don't, I don't much care. Essentially nothing is as important to me as knowing and understanding, as nearly as I can, everything.

About that free will, and the deep, lasting emotional scars they would suffer for having a wiener poked up their backside or down their throat (or poking their wiener someplace similarly distasteful... The question, as stated, is non-specific as to the thoroughness of the test.)

I doubt I'd lose any sleep. Granted, I would have given them a tough choice... But the only way in which my tough choice would differ from tough choices they face every day is that it would be safer, more short term, and far, far more lucrative.

Our hypothetical subject faces these choices every day, whether or not they acknowledge them... They could rob a bank, they could deal drugs, they could become a prostitute, they could clean toilets for a living.

I agree that the deal (whether they are about scat or counter-orientation sex) is just a magnification of... well... thye capitalist system basically. Which is why my feelings towards it are basically the same I agree with your prognosis though. It's just that I find the whole situation horrible. I find it unacceptable that people need to fear dying of hunger. I find it unacceptable that people need to fear being homeless. And I find it unacceptable that people play on those fears and make them do things they don't want to do, and the greater that need of the 'poor one', and the more they despise the action they 'choose' to do, the more I find the 'transaction' a crime on the 'rich' person's compto.

Giving someone a job to clean toilets: A sigh and a shrug. It's a rotten system, but it's the one that works now. Best we can do is have a social security and wellfare to ease the fears.

Offering someone 50 K to have sex that disgusts that person: Serious 'bastard' points right there. Now you're just hurting people with your economic power.

And all the way at the end?

Offering a woman in Africa dying of thirst a glass of water to dance a jig: I bet you most of them'll accept it, and most that don't will reject that decision.

[Rand Al'tor]

That's your avatar not your sig.

See, I see nothing wrong with that situation.

You do what you feel you must to survive. In certain situations, people have eaten human flesh, killed others, etc etc.

I certainly don't see how performing a sexual act for money is wrong. Nobody is harmed, everyone benefits. It is a casual exchange of goods and services, something we have been doing since one cave man had chickens and wanted the other's corn.

If you think that is wrong the argument you are making is not about prostitution or the show 'fear factor' but against capitalism.

Prostitution is just another form of captalism. ANd I mind it a lot less if the prostitutes in question are people who have no hang ups about sex. I start having MORE problems when someone is actively SEEKING OUT people who DO have hang-ups and use their fears against them to get them to do something they really don't wanna do.

Fear-factor... is more complicated, and adds in peer pressure and other things in the equation. But I seriously dislike the shows anyway.

(and yeah, I mistyped and later edited, but you beat me to it)

[Squidflakes]

Like it or not, we're all whores. You trade your time and your muscles or your mind for goods and services, be it direct trade or currency enabled.

Communism and Capitalism don't differ on that position. Whether you're working for the Man or the State, you're still getting something for something. The only thing Communism does is remove a degree of choice.

Capitalism: Do I want to live in a large house or a small house. Do I want to try to get something close to my job or far. Do I want city or country.

Communism: Do I want my community bed against the wall, or in the middle of the room?

As for dignity.. its just a word fellas. All the concept of dignity equates to is a social desire to save face and be thought of as the "better person". Dignity is one of those crazy human inventions that actually counter survival.

[Rand Al'tor]

Like it or not, we're all whores. You trade your time and your muscles or your mind for goods and services, be it direct trade or currency enabled.

Communism and Capitalism don't differ on that position. Whether you're working for the Man or the State, you're still getting something for something. The only thing Communism does is remove a degree of choice.

Capitalism: Do I want to live in a large house or a small house. Do I want to try to get something close to my job or far. Do I want city or country.

Communism: Do I want my community bed against the wall, or in the middle of the room?

As for dignity.. its just a word fellas. All the concept of dignity equates to is a social desire to save face and be thought of as the "better person". Dignity is one of those crazy human inventions that actually counter survival.

Actually, I read some ways in this nifty book that a lot of crazy irrational stuff humanity has are actually very handy for survival. It's something beyond your control, and thus nobody can expect you to turn it off. If you don't have dignity, for exampel, nobody is gonna offer you 50 K.. after all, they offe rthe 50 K BECAUSE they want to overrule that dignity.

And I agree that in a capitalist system, we are all whores. I'll rent out my body and mind for money. But there are degrees of how much of a whore you are made. How dependant you are on those who give money or other things, how far you want to go against your own likings and morals for those things. Living in Belgium, I don't need to fear poverty as much as someone in the US, who in turn needs to fear it less than someone in Sudan.

Communism is a word lots of people use for different things, and I'm just one of them. But as I see it, it would mean that I don't go clean toilets because I have to, because I have the spectre of poverty hanging above me, but because damn it... people need clean toilets, and I don't feel like lounging in front of the TV all day.

Of course, this won't work at the moment, I accept that. (I think it might one day, but that's another discussion)

So basically, the problem with this 'offer' is the same problem I have with capitalism, but magnified and tailor-made to hurt someone rather than juste xploit them.

(And NIN is playing Head Like a Hole... heh, how fitting)

(Also... WHEEE! Getting into discussions is fun!)

[Error of Logic]

Squidflakes ... Dignity can be what you said. And it can be the desire to save your self from that which would change you in ways you personally find disgusting. Dignity is not all about the other guy, the important bit of it is about yourself, about your preservation of self.
It's not the same as survival, but to be human, I think it is quite vital.

[Squidflakes]

EoL, I agree with you to a point.

However, the root emotion behind dignity, and such things as honor, glory, and pride is shame, or specifically the avoidance of shame. Shame has LONG been used as a tool to control humans because its so damn effective. The big three monotheistic religions all use shame as a hammer when it comes to shaping the soft mettle of their followers.
Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with dignity, honor, glory, ect but I fully believe that ones dignity should not be based on shame.

[Error of Logic]

Then base dignity on hope. Or stubbornness. The hope that we can be better than the worst to which mankind can sink, the stubbornness not to allow anyone to push us past boundaries that we have, through one thing and another, set for ourselves and decided to uphold.

It doesn't have to be about shame. Dignity is about you and what you want to be.
Of course, if dignity's only about what you don't want to be for you, then it's all about shame. But by that time, you're well into the area of pride, I think.

[Honor]

Welcome to one of my grand theories... Which are all works in progress, and all of which I consider to be, at best, potential "facets" of some possible final theory of everything... Almost none of which, obviously, I will be the one to figure out.

I'm just trying to do my part in the grand quest to know and understand everything.

Everything humans do or want to do is reduceable to basic, evolutionary survivalistic instincts, and the way those instincts interact with the complex nature of society and socialization. Outside of neurological trauma and mental illness, there are no exceptions.

When behaviour is looked at in that way, it can be understood that each thing people* are prone (in general or in specific) to doing must have a foundation in a basic instinct... To our most basic "reptile" or "instinct driven" sub-brain, these instincts will always bear on personal survival and/or the production/survival of offspring, no matter how far removed from that instinct the final behaviour might seem. Even when the instinct originally served has since been overridden by social evolution, recessives, mutation, and/or technology.

The behaviour we refer to as "Dignity" is a facet of the pack instinct seen in humans and many other social animals.

We know, on an instinctive, hard-wired level, that to be cast out from the pack is most probably to perish... We also know that the better our position within the pack, the more likely we are to survive, the more likely to attract a favorable mate, and the more likely are our offspring to be strong and survive.

Therefore we are loathe to do things that we feel will result in the serious disapproval of the rest of the pack, and result in our expulsion or loss of status.

Dignity is simply the expression of that fear through projection of our ideals onto others... If we would despise one who would so such a thing, we fear others would despise us for doing it. Our most basic instinctive brain translates this fear by creating self-loathing.


*(on average, not always per individual... Individual behaviours can be subject to numerous instinct "mutations" as well as psychological & sociological factors)

[Rand Al'tor]

Welcome to one of my grand theories... Which are all works in progress, and all of which I consider to be, at best, potential "facets" of some possible final theory of everything... Almost none of which, obviously, I will be the one to figure out.

I'm just trying to do my part in the grand quest to know and understand everything.

Everything humans do or want to do is reduceable to basic, evolutionary survivalistic instincts, and the way those instincts interact with the complex nature of society and socialization. Outside of neurological trauma and mental illness, there are no exceptions.

When behaviour is looked at in that way, it can be understood that each thing people* are prone (in general or in specific) to doing must have a foundation in a basic instinct... To our most basic "reptile" or "instinct driven" sub-brain, these instincts will always bear on personal survival and/or the production/survival of offspring, no matter how far removed from that instinct the final behaviour might seem. Even when the instinct originally served has since been overridden by social evolution, recessives, mutation, and/or technology.

The behaviour we refer to as "Dignity" is a facet of the pack instinct seen in humans and many other social animals.

We know, on an instinctive, hard-wired level, that to be cast out from the pack is most probably to perish... We also know that the better our position within the pack, the more likely we are to survive, the more likely to attract a favorable mate, and the more likely are our offspring to be strong and survive.

Therefore we are loathe to do things that we feel will result in the serious disapproval of the rest of the pack, and result in our expulsion or loss of status.

Dignity is simply the expression of that fear through projection of our ideals onto others... If we would despise one who would so such a thing, we fear others would despise us for doing it. Our most basic instinctive brain translates this fear by creating self-loathing.


*(on average, not always per individual... Individual behaviours can be subject to numerous instinct "mutations" as well as psychological & sociological factors)

Hmm... I'm reminded of Steven Pinker. he basically tried the same, but in the first chapter, he explained that the scientific evolutionary way of seeing things was quite seperate from the ethical way of seeing them. The two work on entirely different principles and assumptions, and mixing them leads to either or both of them being compromized. If we want to keep both a scientific view of ourselves, without discarding all ideals of goodness, freedom, human rights, etc, etc. as superstitious bullcrap, or if we want to keep those without fearing to look into the mirror, we have to keep them seperate. We must learn to see ourselves as both the product of an evolutionary process, with each emotion, each choice explicable from a scientific standpoint... and in that same way, see ourselves as free, independant agents that can make choices about their actions, and should be free to make them without duress, as long as they don't step on other people's rights.

And offering people in an insecure financial position 50 K to do something they really don't want to do falls under duress.

[Swordsman3003]

No, no its does not qualify as duress! If you have this so called 'dignity', then any offer of money would not cause you to compromise. If you were not resolute in the first place, then you have neither dignity nor courage!

The difference in this situation from many others is that YOU are the one with the choice, and YOU are the one in control. You can live your life perfectly fine without that money. Nobody has forced you to do anything. What is the difference between bribing with money and anything else?

I'm sure your gf/bf w/e may have some fetish or whatever that you don't like. However, I am also you you have compromised to get him/her/it to do stuff you like as well.

And no, capitalism should not be summed up as 'rich people forcing poor people to do stuff because they have money' any more than communism could be summed up as 'nobody does any work because there are no benefits for trying hard'.

[Jackalope]

The bunch of y'all need to look up "cognitive dissonance." When tempted to do something possibly against one's moral/cultural rules, one often comes up with a rationale for why it is noble and good to not take that action. And the more one was tempted, the stronger the rationalizations will be. In fact, the more strongly someone is tempted, the more likely they are to strongly take a position against whatever tempted them.

That's vastly over-simplifying, but it's the part of the theory that pertains to this discussion. And yes, experiments have been done. My books are in storage, or I'd look up the citations for you. As it is, Google Scholar is your friend and I'm sure you can find plenty just as fast as I can.

I'm suprised that Ghastly hasn't jumped in and mentioned it yet. Maybe he didn't take social psych along with his anthro classes. Or maybe he's given up on this drunk's march of a thread...

[Jackalope]

Wikipedia article very incomplete, mostly talks about Festinger's experiments.
Wikipedia on Elliot Aronson Again, really incomplete.

Hah, here's one some people will like:
Using Cognitive Dissonance to Increase Market Share

It looks like Aronson's book The Social Animal is still in print and still used as a university textbook (hey, it's been nearly 15 years since I took that class). As a survey of social psych, it's a pretty good text if you also get the companion text Readings About the Social Animal which is reprints of all the classic studies that I can't find anywhere on the net because theyr'e too old...

[Rand Al'tor]

No, no its does not qualify as duress! If you have this so called 'dignity', then any offer of money would not cause you to compromise. If you were not resolute in the first place, then you have neither dignity nor courage!

There's other factors besides dignity here. there's also fear. Fear of being unemployed,impoverished, homeless... And someone making that offer is using that fear to overcome

The difference in this situation from many others is that YOU are the one with the choice, and YOU are the one in control. You can live your life perfectly fine without that money. Nobody has forced you to do anything. What is the difference between bribing with money and anything else?

Because you CAN'T live life without money. As Honor said, money is security, in some waus SURVIVAL in the current society. Suppos eyou work in a climate of great uneployment and non-existant, and your employer tells you to do degrading (but legal) things or you get fired. Yeah, the choice is still yours, but taking the choice AGAINST the one that tries to force you is the one that has great odds of screwing you up. There are laws fortunately that keep the worst edge of it, but well... as long as some people need to fear poverty, and some people have money to burn, some people, IMO, are able to use duress against others.

Which is why I'm a doity commie of course.

I'm sure your gf/bf w/e may have some fetish or whatever that you don't like. However, I am also you you have compromised to get him/her/it to do stuff you like as well.

Probably... if... I...had.. :Cry:

*sniffles* However, that situation is entirely different.The rich person just throws some money, the SO would actually invest 'herself' in a relationship, and the way you feel about doing certain fetishes directly affects his/her happiness. Also, lack of money, in our current society, has direct influence on your security and sometimes even your survival (depending on where you live), lack of SO well... that's a pain too, but you won't go hungry because of it.

And no, capitalism should not be summed up as 'rich people forcing poor people to do stuff because they have money' any more than communism could be summed up as 'nobody does any work because there are no benefits for trying hard'.

A sadistic litle situation as above would indeed not be the 'usual'fare of capitalism. After all someone who doe sthis won't exactlystay rich for long. And heck, no system can be correctly summarized in one snappy sentence. But 'rich people can make poor people do stuff' seems to be in the right direction.

[Swordsman3003]

Nonetheless, that is not what Capitalism is about; that is just your take, what you see as a negative.

I think I need to be more specific. I am assuming in this situation, that the person being offered the 50k could get along just fine without it.

Otherwise, a better question might be: How wrong is it to force a starving person to do the hokey pokey for food?

But that is not the issue at hand. Please let us assume that this is an optional act for this person, that their life would just be greatly enhanced by this money.

Also, you are being very derogatory of the rich. Not every rich person is out to 'prey on the poor'. As a matter of fact, I have met several rich people and none of them are like that at all. Rich does not imply that someone is taking advantage of others, they are just taking advantage of the system that allows them to become rich. You don't make money by stealing it from the poor.

Also, asking someone to do something for you because you will pay them for it: WHAT THE HELL IS SO WRONG WITH THAT!?!?!

This isn't "The rich forcing the poor to do their shit because they can make them afraid of dying poor and alone." Rich people do not create that fear, people see the world around them and come to that conclusion on their own. What I'm saying is, the rich are not responsible for destitution. They did not cause, although some say it is the responsibility to stop it.

[Rand Al'tor]

Nonetheless, that is not what Capitalism is about; that is just your take, what you see as a negative.

Well obviously it's my take, as it's in my post. I believe it to be the correct take though, until someone can convince me otherwise.

I think I need to be more specific. I am assuming in this situation, that the person being offered the 50k could get along just fine without it.

Hmm... Honor's specification suggested that the person being offered would have trouble without the 50K. Someone who can't afford to buy real butter is not someone who's in a strong position. Of course, if it's like a conversation at a golf club

A: I say Eustace, I believe you are terribly scared of sex with a man.
B: Nonsense, Archibald... I fear no man... even in my anus.
A: Hoho, I have fifty thousand doll.... POUND that say otherwise.
B: HAH! Your loss, chap... Bring on the buttsex!

Obviously, that's a whole other situation, indeed.

Otherwise, a better question might be: How wrong is it to force a starving person to do the hokey pokey for food?

But that is not the issue at hand. Please let us assume that this is an optional act for this person, that their life would just be greatly enhanced by this money.

A starving's person's life would be greatly ehanced by food. It's just a matter of gradation.g or plenty of people, that money might very well at some point make the di Ffference between making mortage payment or getting out on the street, of getting a college education and having a chance of success in life, or giving up their dreams and work in a factory.

Also, you are being very derogatory of the rich. Not every rich person is out to 'prey on the poor'. As a matter of fact, I have met several rich people and none of them are like that at all. Rich does not imply that someone is taking advantage of others, they are just taking advantage of the system that allows them to become rich. You don't make money by stealing it from the poor.

I didn't say all rich people DO those things, I say they are ABLE to do them. They have the power. However, as you say, they take advantadge of the system, and the system takes advantadge of the people. But then again, most of the people, wholeheartedly or less so, support the system. Heck, I support the system, I cosnume and I work, because the system is the one that... well.. works... in its own way. We in Belgium managed to get the system to compromise a lot, fortunately.

Also, asking someone to do something for you because you will pay them for it: WHAT THE HELL IS SO WRONG WITH THAT!?!?!

The thing that is wrong is that people shouldn't have to obety anyone just so they get to have food, a house, education, medical care, etc. etc. Now, situation being like it is, I don't have much of a problem with people just generally just making 'open calls' and assuming that whoever shows up doesn't mind the job they offer too much. But when people start singling out people and use the fear the system generates to make them do things SPECIFICALLY because they actively dislike it, because they'll feel ashamed of it?

Plenty of things wrong with that.

This isn't "The rich forcing the poor to do their shit because they can make them afraid of dying poor and alone." Rich people do not create that fear, people see the world around them and come to that conclusion on their own. What I'm saying is, the rich are not responsible for destitution. They did not cause, although some say it is the responsibility to stop it.

Actually, as soon a syou take mor e than 'your share' you ARE causing people to be poor. There's only so much resources. Any acre of land you use for luxury products is an acre of land the 'hungry masses' can't use for food. And while the rich might not directly create the fear, the person in our example with the 50 K does prey on the fear.

[Swordsman3003]

Likewise, I think except in extreme circumstances, people should have to work to survive. If it was possible to not do anything that required effort and still be ok, nobody would do anything.

No, I don't think people constantly have in the back of their minds "holy shit i must OBEY the rich people or i will stave and die'

No, I don't think there is anything, not one thing at all, that is wrong with offering somebody money to do something they don't like to do! They don't have to do it!! Name one thing that is a problem, without saying 'playing on the fears of the poor'.

The rich cannot 'force' anyone to do anything! I, have no money, could just as easily bribe you with something that I had that you didn't. It's called life!

And how do you get off saying you shouldn't have to obey anyone to get medical care, etc etc? People should have to contribute to society for society to contribute to them! Nobody 'deserves' an education, we just feel that it is an important tool for creating a healthy society.

I'm sorry, but this is not an argument about capitalism vs communism per se, but more about that you think society owes everyone something.

I say this is clearly not true.

[Squidflakes]

The bunch of y'all need to look up "cognitive dissonance."

Quite familiar with the term. Its one of the primary reasons why individuals in the Religious Reich are such fuckholes.

There was a great little exploration of this in the American remake of "Le Cage aux Foiles". Old, white, rich, and powerful senator who's platform was one of "strong christian values" was found dead in a hotel after having visited an underage black prostitute.


So, next time you hear some windbag politician fuck go on and on about thing X ruining society, you can be safe in the knowledge that there is a good chance the politician activly engages in the thing, or has been sorely tempted by it.

"The moneys on the dresser chocolate"

[Swordsman3003]

Yeah Jackolope, people do seem to put a lot of moral prestige around 'resisting temptation'.

The funny thing is, what may seem tempting to you may have no effect on somebody else, so you have no idea if they really 'resisted' it.

[Honor]

A: I say Eustace, I believe you are terribly scared of sex with a man.
B: Nonsense, Archibald... I fear no man... even in my anus.
A: Hoho, I have fifty thousand doll.... POUND that say otherwise.
B: HAH! Your loss, chap... Bring on the buttsex!

These four lines have made this whole conversation more worthwhile. I could almost offer to fix your girlfriend problem based on that little slice of wit.

Communism, communism, socialism, communism, communism, socialism, communism. Oh, and also, communism.

So... If I understand you correctly... Your position is that, you consider yourself a communist even though you realistically understand that communism is a wholly unworkable philosophy at our current level of technology and/or social development?

How does that differ from a political philosophy of, say...

"I am in favor of pink unicorns ruling the world! If, you know, there actually were pink unicorns. And, if they were smart. And nice. And didn't make a mess in the house."

The bunch of y'all need to look up "cognitive dissonance."

I have to assume you meant the others... Since I'm familiar with this concept, and it doesn't have any invalidating effect on my instinctive evolution theories. Fits rather nicely with them, actually.

Hmm... I'm reminded of Steven Pinker. he basically tried the same, but in the first chapter, he explained that the scientific evolutionary way of seeing things was quite seperate from the ethical way of seeing them.

True... The "ethical way of seeing them" is imaginary... Which is not to say it has no substance, but rather that it's substance is, in whole, based on artificial social and intellectual constructs, like ethics.

If we want to keep both a scientific view of ourselves, without discarding all ideals of goodness, freedom, human rights, etc, etc. as superstitious bullcrap, or if we want to keep those without fearing to look into the mirror, we have to keep them seperate.

Concepts such as goodness, freedom, human rights, etc, etc. (some such etc's including law, morality, ethics, government, religion, and spirituality) are superstitious bullcrap (or, perhaps better put, make-believe). But they're (some of them) superstitious (or make-believe) bullcrap well worth maintaining.

Whether or not it's "wrong" to kill another human being (it is), and whether or not "right" and "wrong" actually exist on their own (they don't), it's still worth keeping up as a social pretense... It's beneficial to us all to say "murder is wrong" for the sake of those who are neither intelligent enough nor well enough educated to understand that what we mean is "it's non-beneficial for the group to allow murder without reprecussion."

Scientific understanding of the true nature of human behaviour is not mutually exclusive with the study of the lesser causes of social behaviour and/or the degree of free will we all do and do not exercise.

For instance, it neither makes us any less human nor prevents us from working to change our behaviour to understand that jealousy is a evolutionarily instinctive behaviour driven by the twin needs for personal survival and survival of offspring.

Even if you don't have children, don't ever want children, or, like myself, can't even have children, your instinctive brain doesn't have access to all that complex information, and wouldn't understand it if it did. Thus, when your lover fucks someone else, your instinct brain thinks one thought, loud and clear... If you're female, that is roughly "Warning! Warning! This has the potential to deprive me of the resources and mutual protection of the pack, and as such is going to jeopardize the well being of my offspring, and may well also jeopardize my own well being!!" If you're male, it factors in the potential for doubt as to the parantage of the offspring of your mate.