Priori aptitudes (Archetypes) vs Tabula rasa

[RSK]

every time i see the title of this thread, i think... 'aperture priority' mode... okay, just had to throw that in there... pls continue...

[lastwish]

You have to bear in mind that new born babies don't show a lot more than that because they're trying to get a hold of their facilitites in a new world.

Thats why I think Carl Jung's theory is difficult to be tested. And for something to become science, first it must be testable.

After a little bit of time though as they adopt they can show kindness even if that kindness is untaught. They don't have to understand kindess as a concept, they are driven by instinctual behaviour to do something good for another person. This is where I believe the archetypes fit in. I'm interested to know how far our instinct drives us.

Whether human nature is altruistic or egoistic is up for debate.

[Mish]

Thats why I think Carl Jung's theory is difficult to be tested. And for something to become science, first it must be testable.

A lot is testable already. Testing doesn't have to apply to newborns either. Children can't grasp complex concepts for awhile, yet they still act out the behaviour without even knowing the concept.

Whether human nature is altruistic or egoistic is up for debate.

Totaly and I'm not saying that it isn't debated. Personally I think it's a bit of both, but I also see at least some of altruism and egotism drives as instinctual.

It's an interesting area and the fact that it hasn't been done that much compared to other areas in Psychology, means that there's a niche for us to explore.

[DoesntMatter]

Animals are altruistic to some extent. The extent of which is defined by Hamilton's equation

[lastwish]

A lot is testable already. Testing doesn't have to apply to newborns either. Children can't grasp complex concepts for awhile, yet they still act out the behaviour without even knowing the concept.

If children was used instead then it wouldn't be an accurate experiment. The child might have been shown the act of handing something over to another person. But whether they are truely handing it over because they have some innate motivation to do so is hard to tell.

However, if an experiment was done on children, I highly doubt results will show that children are selfless.

Totaly and I'm not saying that it isn't debated. Personally I think it's a bit of both, but I also see at least some of altruism and egotism drives as instinctual.

You will find a lot of people who will disagree with you. Personally, I'm leaning more to egoism.

[Mish]

However, if an experiment was done on children, I highly doubt results will show that children are selfless.

But that's not what I meant. I'm not leaning one way or the other (towards egoism or selflessness), just saying that there is an instinctual drive for either one of them.

[Mish]

Animals are altruistic to some extent. The extent of which is defined by Hamilton's equation

I'd like to read up a bit more on that. Do you have a link DM?

[DoesntMatter]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection[/url]

And it's actually an inequality, not an equation

[Mish]

Thanks DM

I found this interesting:

Under natural selection, a gene encoding a trait that enhances the fitness of each individual carrying it should increase in frequency within the population; and conversely, a gene that lowers the individual fitness of its carriers should be eliminated. However, a gene that prompts behaviour which enhances the fitness of relatives but lowers that of the individual displaying the behavior, may nonetheless increase in frequency, because relatives often carry the same gene; this is the fundamental principle behind the theory of kin selection. According to the theory, the enhanced fitness of relatives can at times more than compensate for the fitness loss incurred by the individuals displaying the behaviour.

[lastwish]

But that's not what I meant. I'm not leaning one way or the other (towards egoism or selflessness), just saying that there is an instinctual drive for either one of them.

Again, you will find many people disagreeing with you. It seems that behind every "kind" action, there are self-interested motivations. For example, feelings good about yourself for being kind, being kind to others so they will be kind to you back, etc, all have self-interest elements in it.

If accurate experiments can be done on Carl Jung's theories then I would definitely be convinced.

Thanks DM

I found this interesting:

Under natural selection, a gene encoding a trait that enhances the fitness of each individual carrying it should increase in frequency within the population; and conversely, a gene that lowers the individual fitness of its carriers should be eliminated. However, a gene that prompts behaviour which enhances the fitness of relatives but lowers that of the individual displaying the behavior, may nonetheless increase in frequency, because relatives often carry the same gene; this is the fundamental principle behind the theory of kin selection. According to the theory, the enhanced fitness of relatives can at times more than compensate for the fitness loss incurred by the individuals displaying the behaviour.

Interesting. Yet...I don't see the same behavior in any flourishing human society.