What Is Human Nature?

In this video, Elina St-Onge expresses a different perspective on “Human Nature” and shares another potential way to live and perceive our roles within society.

“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” – Albert Einstein

Please Share: http://bit.ly/HTCTW-Free-eBook-Image


Luke Rudkowski is an independent journalist, activist, live streamer and founder of WeAreChange.org.

50 Comments on "What Is Human Nature?"

  1. SushiBushi | Feb 16, 2014 at 4:24 pm |

    My favourite model of Human Nature of all time, is the 8-circuit model of conciousness.

    Altsuism is not a sexy male trait according to women, but material possessions, money, power and status are.

    Males will always have to adjust themselves to the hypergamous nature of women, doing otherwise will only end in getting you genes eliminated from the gene pool.

    • It’s called “altruism”, and you have no idea what you’re talking about.

      (p.s. Here’s an idea: try *not* pursuing vain, money-grubbing whores and take some personal responsibility for helping to breed the worst characteristics in human kind. So what is it, are those other girls not pretty enough to get your dick hard? Like I said…)

      • Eric_D_Read | Feb 17, 2014 at 11:56 pm |

        Despite the selling error and oversimplification; he’s not far off the mark.
        No matter how much humans like to imagine we’re ruled by our logic and reason; biological realities have zero fucks to give whether or not you find its methods distasteful.
        Females of the human species dictate if and when sex happens in any society that outlaws rape or arraigned marriage.
        They also tend to prefer males high on the social dominance hierarchy.
        it’s not called the cold hard truth for no reason.

        • Okay, I don’t exist. You convinced me.

          p.s. It’s spelled “s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g” and that’s not how you use a semicolon.

          • SushiBushi | Feb 20, 2014 at 2:53 am |

            You can say that he has wrong and that is because he doesn’t know enouh women. But he has the evolutionary psychologists at his side. And he also have all the worlds professional pickup artists, game-bloggers, and other seduction experts on his side.

            I consider their views more legit than yours because they have both the science and empiric evidence behind them.

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 20, 2014 at 11:42 am |

            The evopsychologists are not on anyones ‘side’. The PUAs derive their info regarding these topics from popscience books and articles – the only side that these sources are on is profit and political engineering.

          • Eric_D_Read | Feb 20, 2014 at 6:33 pm |

            First, your existence, and whoever you think your sexual behavior disproves those theories, doesn’t matter on a grand scale. It would just make you an exception IF your behavior is actually that different from the norm.

            Yes, I’ve considered it, and rejected it. Blank Slate Theory has been largely disproved. Humans do in fact have hardwired behavioral tendencies that vary between males and females.

            Lastly, ya got me. My keyboard is old and temperamental. But since this is a comment thread and not an article I’m submitting for publication, I didn’t bother to proof it that closely. You seem to have figured the words out anyway, so gold star in spelling for you!
            p.s. semicolons can be used to connect closely related ideas; so that is an acceptable use for one. Nice try at slipping in an ad hominem though.

          • The accused “ad hominem” was in a post script. You are still using semicolons incorrectly.

          • Eric_D_Read | Feb 21, 2014 at 10:08 am |

            …and you’re avoiding the main points. Typical.

          • What you just attempted, I’d like to label the “‘Ad Hominem” Red Herring” fallacy. You see, I never actually was avoiding the main points, until you claimed I was, because you led us away from the conversation by attempting to make an insult into an ad hominem attack.

            You see, my last response, that is, the part where I mentioned that my insult / “accused ‘ad hominem'” was included in a post script, was crafted specifically to communicate to you the FACT that you are not responding to MY entire comment–you are the one “avoiding the main points”. Typical.

            Furthermore, if you’re just butt-hurt because I pointed out that you have weak skills in spelling, grammar and usage of punctuation, keep in mind that it was actually still topical to the conversation, from my first reply. You joined my conversation to SushiBushi. Did you seriously forget?

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 23, 2014 at 5:57 pm |

            You used two hyphens when a single en dash would have been more concise: [(–/–).]☜

          • Damn!

          • Eric_D_Read | Feb 24, 2014 at 12:26 am |

            Bullshit,. Three comments up you made three assertions before your postscript.
            I addressed each one. You responded by playing Grammar Nazi and only addressing the 4th paragraph.

            Let’s start with counterpoint 1. I made a statement about general tendencies in male/female human behavior. You responded with “OK, I don’t exist” as if your perception that you don’t fit into this pattern somehow invalidates observed general patterns about the other 6+ billion home sapiens sapiens on this planet.
            That’s like me saying its absurd to claim that smoking causes several deadly heath problems because my grandmother smoked two pack per day for 70 years and didn’t get any smoking related illness.

          • That was your response? I thought you were just randomly blathering…probably because it had absolutely nothing to do with my comments.

            I see your “Bullshit,.” and raise you a “Horse Shit!”

            1. Let’s get this perfectly clear: you responded to me. I have no obligations, pretend or otherwise, to give you you a debate. Stop acting like I owe you something, entitled little prince.

            2. I did not recognize your response as relating to my comment because I never argued about the “Blank Slate Theory”. What you just did there: that’s called a “Straw Man argument”. (Are you taking notes?)

            For me to have suggested that women are also shaped by their environment…this is not a concept which is mutually exclusive to the idea of inborn traits.

            3. My perception and MANY, MANY, MANY, OTHERS.

            There is very likely an age discrepancy at play; how old are you? Many different women, many different social backgrounds, economic backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, etc. would entirely disagree with your ideas about women. They’re not all “feminists”, either.

            I have seen too many young women “take care” of a shiftless layabout (formerly known as a “dead-beat”) by buying him cars, clothing, video games, even jewelry…usually only to be cheated on, come to think of it…

            Hm, sounds like it’s actually the men who have a problem with a woman being the main “breadwinner”. (It makes them think their dicks are small. Who says so? Science.)

            Which one of you two was it who was just bragging about having 70+ women? Sure hope you’re using a condom…you might want to think about getting your tubes tied, as well.

          • > Blank Slate Theory has been largely disproved. Humans do in fact have
            hardwired behavioral tendencies that vary between males and females.

            So you’re not an absolute believer in “free will.” Neither am I.

          • Eric_D_Read | Feb 21, 2014 at 10:21 am |

            Ideologues who rush to claim everything about human behavior that they don’t like is the result of social conditioning are. They may not want to admit it. Perhaps many are not even consciously aware that is the position they’re coming from.

          • What I’m saying is that if humans have hardwired behavioral tendencies, then we do not have truly free will.

          • Eric_D_Read | Feb 24, 2014 at 12:27 am |

            On that point, we are in agreement.

        • It was called “the cold hard truth” by you. Macho arrogance may get you laid, but it doesn’t make your pronouncements objective.

          • SushiBushi | Feb 20, 2014 at 2:51 am |

            Yes it actually does if it gets him laid in the objective world.

          • It actually doesn’t, because orgasm is his only measure of truth.

          • SushiBushi | Feb 20, 2014 at 11:13 am |

            There is a difference between getting an orgasm by masturbating at home, and meeting a woman, having her getting attracted to you, followed by having sexual intercourse with her.

          • The difference being that the latter sometimes requires a man to sacrifice more of his personal integrity than the former?

          • Do you perhaps feign a broken arm, remove the front seat of your V.W. Bug, and rig the lock on that door to malfunction?

          • Eric_D_Read | Feb 20, 2014 at 6:42 pm |

            You make it sound as if I’ve invented the argument all by myself. There is tons of research, both academic and non, that supports everything I’ve said.

          • Link to some academic research, and I’ll decide if I find it credible.

          • Eric_D_Read | Feb 21, 2014 at 11:32 am |

            Sure. I’ll get on that right after you provide a reason why your opinion on what’s credible carries more weight than mine.
            Otherwise do your own research. There’s plenty of info on these topics if one is interested in finding it.

          • I could ask you the same thing. My personal experience is that there are different kinds of women just as there are different kinds of me. And I’ve read a lot of research on the neuroplasticity of the brain. If the blank slate theory were completely untrue, then we’d be incapable of learning, which we obviously are not. Now, if you’re arguing that human behavior is a combination of nature and nurture, then I don’t disagree with you.

          • Eric_D_Read | Feb 24, 2014 at 12:40 am |

            I’m not arguing that humans are identical genetic copies that churn off of an assembly line.Surely individual experience plays a big part of who each person becomes.
            But I am arguing that there are observable tendencies with which we can discern patterns of behavior that are very different between males and females. Also that individual exceptions to those patterns do not invalidate the fact that those patterns exist.
            And yes we are in complete agreement with regards to your last sentence.

          • SushiBushi | Feb 24, 2014 at 5:45 pm |

            As I noted in my first post.
            The 8-circuit model of conciousness is my favourite model.

            In the nature-nurture issue, it has three different categories:
            1) Genes; hardware. Hard to change.
            2) Imprints; Enviromental events that get stuck in the hardware. Rom cartridges, software turned hardware. Somewhat changeable.
            3) Enviromental: Current (social) affections. Easier to change.

            If you change your brains neuroplasticicity, I interpret it as you have passed the enviomental level, and have started to change your imprints.

            Free will : Once you have satisfied your lower circuits:

            C1: You have become relieved from immediate physical needs like fear, cold and hunger. Reptile brain satisfied.

            C2: Free of emotional attachment of others opinion about yourself, free of your herd mentality and need of validation from other, feeling trust in your own evalutation of yourself insead of others judgement. Not anxious about your status in your pack-hierarchy.
            Mammal/Herd-brain satisfied.

            C3: You have mastered the way of thinking, language and expressing your mind in a satisfactory way. Your own personal expression of your own experiences, made your own thought-patterns, have becoming aware of your own internal dialogue. Human brain satisfied.

            C4: Sexual satisfaction. Your mind is not steering your awareness and mind to things that are connected to sex, getting laid, porn and stuff like that.
            Replication instincts under control.

            C5+ Here is when true free will is starting to manifest.
            Food and safety concerns fixed. Emotional and social concerns fixed. Thinking and language fixed. Sexual urges fixed. Now the ability for free will starts for real.

            You can can use inner means, like mastering stuff like yoga and meditation to still your circuits.
            Or you can use outer means by having abundance of safety, food, friends, intellectual stimulation and sex.

            If you use inner or outer methods, is not important in itself. Its the practical satisfaction of the circuits/needs/drives/dukkha/dna-genetic-program/schopenhauerian-nitszchean will that is the important part.

            That is also my interpretation of what the buddha said, that the path is not depending in itself on ascetism or revelry in the material world, but mastering of “desire”.
            He had personal experiences of living the life of a royalty as well as an ascetig yogi.

          • It’s just too bad that you can’t apply this model to half of the human population, no? Those bizarre and alien Females surely are not capable of surpassing the 2nd circuit, at most! Prayzbob that he left us these commandments!

          • SushiBushi | Feb 25, 2014 at 9:02 am |

            Yeah. Something like that.

            Women haven’t historically had the need to use their third circut in the same way as men. Women have always through history had the option to pass over difficult and demanding activities to men and counting on men to do the demanding stuff and trying to figure out things.

            I see the male computergeek stereotype as a typical example of a circuit three imprinted person. And there are certainliy more computer geeks that are male than female. A computergeek stereotype has a strong circuit 3 imprint and a relativelely meekly developed circuit 1 and 2.

            Even Mystery in his book used terminology like “rewiring her attraction circuits”. I interpret the origins of the Mystery method used by Mystery and Style, as result of them being nerds with naturally weak circuit 1 and 2, and therefore using language based circuit 3 strategy to rewire womens circuit 1 and 2.

            An athletic sports jock stereotype that is attractive to women by virtue of his testosterone induced athleticism and dominance, is what I considered a typical well developed circuit 1 imprint that is used to attract females.

            A celebrity, a rockstar stereotype for example, has a high place in the tribal status hierarchy, and therefore is attracting females through circuit 2. Herd behavior.

            Unathletic guys with low testosterone, and without the benefit of social status, resorting to the use of research, knowledge, communication and language skills as tools instead, in the shape of a computer nerd that called himself Mystery. That was the beginning of the modern-pua-scene.

            If original MM was focused on rewiring womens C1 and C2. The newer style that is used by later RSD, is more focused on trying to rewire ones own circuits insted of females.

            What the later RSD-dudes do, is not as narrow as to only practicing on getting girls, I consider that culture being more of a new breed of pragmatic philosophers trying to do self transfomation, and learning about human behavior.

            I consider Feminists being the typical example of people that are totally enslaved to their emotional judgments and circuit 2 herd mentality. That are totally lacking the ability for logical and rational circuit 3 thinking.

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 25, 2014 at 9:15 am |

            You haven’t demonstrated any behavior beyond C2 yourself.

          • SushiBushi | Feb 25, 2014 at 10:05 am |

            That comment appears to come out of your own C2 motivation. Just a plain sentence aimed at some kind of social discretiting. No arguments or effort for any type of explanation.

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 25, 2014 at 10:18 am |

            Your comments haven’t necessitated explanation or effort.

          • SushiBushi | Feb 25, 2014 at 11:49 am |

            Compared to what? YOUR comments?

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 25, 2014 at 12:04 pm |

            Wasn’t trying to make a comparison. If that is what you’d like to do, you can check the contents of my profile against yours.

          • SushiBushi | Feb 25, 2014 at 12:16 pm |

            You don’t seem interested in adding something constructive to the conversation. You come across as acting on some emotional impulses. What is your motive? What are your emotions when discussing this topic on this article? What are your views?
            (Trying to pinpoint your biases)

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 25, 2014 at 12:27 pm |

            REALY? As a PUA should’t you be able to paint an emotional picture for me so I began to feel immersed in your intellectual charade? Make me feel something. Talk about Elvis’s hair dye or something.
            Touch me nonchalantly on my biases and look away. No doubt I will then be compelled from abject boredom to recognize just how different you are.

          • SushiBushi | Feb 25, 2014 at 12:36 pm |

            I’m not gay.

            …you are staring at the screen……
            …thoughts and emotions are passing into a fog…
            …you begin to feel drowsy…..
            ..your eyelids are starting to become heavy….

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 25, 2014 at 12:41 pm |

            benzos work better

          • > I’m not gay.

            Yeah, that what’s Larry Craig says too.

          • SushiBushi | Feb 25, 2014 at 3:37 pm |

            For some reason you seem to be in the know.

          • Since you brought it up…surely you are aware that computer programming was first seen as “women’s work”, no? Do me a favor, dahling, and look up Ada Lovelace.

            By the way, there is no “re-wiring” going on: you’re just taking advantaged of emotionally-damaged, naive, young women. You can thank their fathers or previous boyfriends (or worse circumstances) for doing all of the “work” for you.

  2. Anti-Crowley | Feb 16, 2014 at 6:18 pm |

    Actually, behavior trending towards the self is built in to the neurology of an infant as soon as they are born. It is a survival essential for infants and drives them to communicate to their mothers for their needs. Social development is a secondary development that comes around the age of 2 or 3.

  3. misinformation | Feb 16, 2014 at 9:30 pm |

    Wow. Schooling helps facilitate becoming an individual? She definitely went to a different school than I did. Social conformity, collectivism, going-along-to-get-along, these are (some) of what compulsory gov’t (and most private) schools teach. Rational self-interest, not so much.

    Though, in fairness, she did fallaciously equate self-interest with [social] Darwinism, so, if she’s defining the terms to suit her opinion, I suppose she can say what she wants.

  4. Thurlow Weed | Feb 17, 2014 at 9:26 am |

    She is well on her way to developing effective hand gestures.

Comments are closed.