Human behavior models serve an important role in social sciences. So far as I can tell there is not any sort of consensus on the validity of existing models, though I think there are hopes that big data will reveal and solidify a universal model for use across individual disciplines. Perhaps neuroscience has already solved the human being, I don’t know. Anyway, here are a few Nietzsche inspired aphorisms I’ve written on human nature. These are not comprehensive, though I do hope they are comprehensible.
Facts – The entirety of one’s knowledge comes into focus on a single point, generally unrelated to its supporting base.
Humanity’s character – God is dead and we have killed him. The question, after Nietzsche, is the source and validity of our moralities. In the absence of a higher order, or perhaps the absence of the acceptance of such a thing: faith, morality moves to be decided in the physical realm. Under physical regimes we are judged by our ability to realize advantage in the forces of the systems with which we interact, and we become sport ourselves. An economic system, for example, which produces optimal results, as all do, becomes a morality in practice as nonparticipants and dissidents are left to the service of the counter-optimal. Physical regimes are moralities of force whereas those of faith are moralities of answered questions. The lowest account of a regime of force concerns the precision of an answer: we call this politics. A higher account concerns the precision of a central question: this is sometimes called philosophy. On occasion, and more as brute than otherwise, the ruckus of some marauding rouge disrupts the prevailing order of central questions to the effect of setting themselves into motion as a force of history unto themselves. But just as the water calms after a wave has passed so does humanity settle around a faith in forced answers.
How did we lose our way? – Origin is related to destination by course, and course is, of course, purpose. The effect of constant and systematic assaults against prevailing theories on human origin and purpose is that people are kept away from any type of productive rebellion by having their rebellious energies turned against their own intellects. That is to say, constant lowbrow challenges to the nature of what humanity is at its core subvert a sophistication in our collective capacity to estimate what it is that we ought to be doing in the present. Origin and purpose warrant thoughtful consideration, and prevailing theories should be subject to upheaval, but when the nature of the assault against the theories of the day can best be described as “fucking retarded,” and when that assault is tolerated, much less when that assault is a central component of corporate-educational-entertainment it works to dictate a framework for thinking that is entirely counterproductive to the effective employment of reason. Consider the “History Channel” show Ancient Aliens. Viewers are primed with quick-cut soundbites which delineate absurdist theory structures such as “what if this” so “what if that” to draw hypothetical conclusions that are so completely unrelated to the underlying premises that nothing in the entire half-an-hour time slot bears consideration. If a person was to imitate and adopt for themselves, in their daily lives, the methods of reasoning shown in any number of similar programs they would be utterly useless to any objective which required a decentralized cooperative component. Conversely, such a person may prove useful to the objectives of well entrenched centralized command structures capable of directing market forces. The only useful rebellions are the smart kind, unless you’re alone, such as we learned from Sartre. Good is holding a course through the wind. Idols are the destination. Humanism served us for a time but has it been noted that we’ve arrived? Without a destination of what consequence is it to let the wind act against your course?
Compartmentalization – In regard to structure, to say that one must walk in the shoes of a police officer to offer a valid critique of the results of an officers actions is to say that one must have experience as a guard at Auschwitz to critique the results of the atrocities that occurred there. Such statements must be considered with a special attention to the things beneath – the foundations which underlie the perceptions of whomever floats such a claim. For instance, in the case of the Nazis, it was offered that obligation to orders was more powerful a force than obligation to dignity – in terms of action, in the moment. This perception was ultimately rejected as illusion at Nuremberg – per my understanding, though I’m not well studied. (Also, the law seems confused on this issue so I’ll only invoke its reference to the extent that my understanding of it validates my view.) Nazi soldiers had been subjected to an active compartmentalization regime. Compartmentalization works as a propensity towards supremacy when undertaken actively, as was the case with the Nazis, and its victims are reordered on a sensory level to such an extent that it affects their experience. The aforementioned Nazi defense could only be raised in disregard to dignity – such disregard is a hallmark of supremacy – as an ordinal character in humanity had come to define their experience. Dignity is, of course, if it may be defined by the preceding implications, simply a claim to well-being and is lost to the extent that it is taken. Thus, when police systematically stand by the use of deadly force against innocent people they are demonstrating a symptom of compartmentalization, in parallel structure to the Nazi experience. A more productive pursuit of justice, which is the ostensible the goal of law enforcement, may be found in an examination of the propensity for compartmentalization within forces.