Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Only read this if you are bored and curious about emerging, alternate views that point out current limitations and ideas that may have future implications on understanding human nature.
G F is limiting down her choices for her future research project, and as a result, I got to browse over some very interesting ideas. The implications of the article may be interesting to you, because it may be an indication that there are alternative viewpoints emerging in which we understand ourselves and one another. In psychology, we use the term FAE, Fundamental Attribution Error, which is really just window dressing to state that when it comes to interpreting peep's behavior, we attribute it to personal attributes rather than how the environment and context have influenced the person's behavior.
Anthropologists who have studied vervets, a type of monkey, have found that they are extremely stupid when it comes to recognizing significant signs that they are in danger, like an antelope carcass in a tree, which means a leopard is around. They fail to recognize the importance of a python trail in the thicket, and prancing along, they are shocked to encounter the snake. They are not stupid animals. When it comes to other vervets, they can discern whether a male's call is from their group or another. When a baby cries they look not for the baby, but for the mother, cause they instinctively know who the baby belongs too. The point is, vervets are great at processing information in regards to other vervets, but horrible at other types of info. Humans and vervets are very similar in this case.
One experiment had subjects view one set of basketball players shooting with the lights on and another group of players shooting in a gym barely lit. They attributed the higher percentage of shots made in the well lit gym to the 'fact' that those players were just better shooters. They did not attribute the cause to how lighting may have influenced the players ability to see the basket.
One study had seminarians on their way to give a speech about the Good Samaritan and told they were already late for their church speech and should get going. In this experiment, this group had to pass by a man who was crouched on the ground and appeared sick. 70 % of the group who were told they were late, ignored the sick man and hurried to give their speech. The other group that was informed they had time to spare was more helpful, with 67% helping the sick man. You would think that after reviewing the story of the Good Samaritan, and the thoughts this promotes, in addition to being a religious scholar, this would influence their behavior. This is not the case. It is basically implied then that it is not the thoughts or convictions of the heart that dictate behavior, in this case, but the context of the situation. There are many more experiments that support this notion that we instinctively establish our worldviews based on personal attributes: this person is a better basketball player, seminarians are good peeps. According to the research, the predominant theory is that we do this in order to simplify the world and make it a more understandable place.
So character can be understood not as this consistent, stable, easily discerned group of closely related traits or qualities. These studies reveal that is more like a loose pattern of tendencies, habits, attractions bundled together and dependent to a substantial degree on the situation and context.
Our current method simplifies things, but has some serious shortcomings. This has implications that point toward new types of knowledge or viewpoints that are more encompassing and accurate on understanding human nature, culture, worldviews, crime, and just basic shit.
Kind of a silly observation, but I thought it may have been kinda interesting for some.
G F is limiting down her choices for her future research project, and as a result, I got to browse over some very interesting ideas. The implications of the article may be interesting to you, because it may be an indication that there are alternative viewpoints emerging in which we understand ourselves and one another. In psychology, we use the term FAE, Fundamental Attribution Error, which is really just window dressing to state that when it comes to interpreting peep's behavior, we attribute it to personal attributes rather than how the environment and context have influenced the person's behavior.
Anthropologists who have studied vervets, a type of monkey, have found that they are extremely stupid when it comes to recognizing significant signs that they are in danger, like an antelope carcass in a tree, which means a leopard is around. They fail to recognize the importance of a python trail in the thicket, and prancing along, they are shocked to encounter the snake. They are not stupid animals. When it comes to other vervets, they can discern whether a male's call is from their group or another. When a baby cries they look not for the baby, but for the mother, cause they instinctively know who the baby belongs too. The point is, vervets are great at processing information in regards to other vervets, but horrible at other types of info. Humans and vervets are very similar in this case.
One experiment had subjects view one set of basketball players shooting with the lights on and another group of players shooting in a gym barely lit. They attributed the higher percentage of shots made in the well lit gym to the 'fact' that those players were just better shooters. They did not attribute the cause to how lighting may have influenced the players ability to see the basket.
One study had seminarians on their way to give a speech about the Good Samaritan and told they were already late for their church speech and should get going. In this experiment, this group had to pass by a man who was crouched on the ground and appeared sick. 70 % of the group who were told they were late, ignored the sick man and hurried to give their speech. The other group that was informed they had time to spare was more helpful, with 67% helping the sick man. You would think that after reviewing the story of the Good Samaritan, and the thoughts this promotes, in addition to being a religious scholar, this would influence their behavior. This is not the case. It is basically implied then that it is not the thoughts or convictions of the heart that dictate behavior, in this case, but the context of the situation. There are many more experiments that support this notion that we instinctively establish our worldviews based on personal attributes: this person is a better basketball player, seminarians are good peeps. According to the research, the predominant theory is that we do this in order to simplify the world and make it a more understandable place.
So character can be understood not as this consistent, stable, easily discerned group of closely related traits or qualities. These studies reveal that is more like a loose pattern of tendencies, habits, attractions bundled together and dependent to a substantial degree on the situation and context.
Our current method simplifies things, but has some serious shortcomings. This has implications that point toward new types of knowledge or viewpoints that are more encompassing and accurate on understanding human nature, culture, worldviews, crime, and just basic shit.
Kind of a silly observation, but I thought it may have been kinda interesting for some.
