Sociableness

[gulliver]

Are people getting more anti-social? Why? I bring up this question because I was talking to a conservative today. Why should he (the conservative) care about anyone but himself?

Suppose you see some guy you don't know drowning in a fast current. The water is rushing over him. He is pinned under a log by the the rushing water and can't get loose. What is your immediate impulse?

I think we all know what it is. But it makes no sense logically. The guy's a stranger and he's drowning. He's nothing to you. Why do you feel you should try to help?

I think the urge to help is essential to humanity, and it is a shame if it dies or is adapted away. People have forgotten that everyone sane has a sort of hard-wired bleeding heart, an in-born urge to help. Only real losers don't have that urge.

Sociableness and the wish to help other people is central to human nature. Liberalism doesn't need to apologize for it.

"You don't have to worry if you got no money. People on the river are happy to give."

[Erika]

1. Republicans would offer help if they got a tax credit for it

It's the Republican way. They think Christ really screwed up by offering fish and manna to all...without a charge or a nanny tax credit.

They patiently wait to give Christ a course on the plusses of corrupt capitalism and pre-emptive war.

[man4allcats]

2. It could be genetic.

Ultimately, we are all related. Whether one calls it "mitochondrial Eve" or something else is, for the most part, beside the point. Others could discuss this better than I, and I would welcome their comments. The point is that species will do whatever they can to keep the species going. The "advantage" that humans have is their intellect. They can make decisions based on things other than survival of the gene pool. In fact, they can make moral decisions. Whether or not they will remains to be seen.

[Erika]

3. Greed appears to be a motive of the GOP

They seem to have devolved when it comes to carrying about others.

[DELUSIONAL]

4. Cultural Anthropology & Cultural Archaeologists have noted

that some cultures can be distinguished as more empathetic -- in the length of time that individuals born with handicaps live.

In Florida an archaeological dig in a bog area (used as a graveyard) found skeletons of individuals with handicaps who lived much longer than would be expected.

Also another culture -- the Inca and the cultures that predated the Inca civilization -- the fields of the priests etc were worked first -- but also widow's fields before the family plot was worked.

These are examples off the top of my head --

A moral decision could also be thought of as empathy -- thinking of the good of all -- rather than self serving immediate gratification which seems to be the mind set of the GOP or the so called conservative nut cases who are now in control.

Empathy seems to be inherited AND socialized -- or if valued by the cultural values of a society -- then children can be taught to be empathetic. Many researchers who test and evaluate children and follow the children over time do seem to have identified some children who are innately empathetic. They also believe that if empathy is not part of the society's culture then children would be punished for showing empathy toward others -- or even non-human animals. Some even theorize that empathy is taught by parents in the way children are allowed to behave toward animals.

There is a lot of Antro & Soc and Psy (social Psy) research into these related topics.

[Erika]

5. Interesting. Dems have always been hit as bleeding hearts

while Dems went and so few GOP joined up in the Vietnam war. Only one of W's cabinet members even served in the military, and that was during peace time.

The GOP seems to care about me,me, me, and let someone else fight their wars. You know those po folks.

[dweller]

6. Rec'd! ... for the simple fact that you've stated.

"Liberalism doesn't need to apologize for it."


it's that easy. A clear conscience is a wonderful thing to behold.
dp

[Odin2005]

7. Blame it on Suburbia.

The escabe to the 'Burbs starting in the 50's basically distroyed the US's social fabric. There are few true communties anyome, only agglomerations of strangers who live in McMansions that call themselves communities.

[NMMNG]

8. Indeed

The Repug's version of "helping" others is telling them what to do and restricting their lives. If they are poor, homeless, starving or disabled then too bad--they're lazy SOBs who need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. :sarcasm:

[applegrove]

9. You are talking empathy. Socialbleness is something else. Do you

mean social responsibility? Empathy? Use the right words. Cause there is always a danger with new words.. that some neocon thought them up as a wedgie. All the while suppressing powerfull words like LIBERAL.

Sociableness implies extroversion I think. And it is the mixture of extroversion and introversion that makes for good people. Extreme extroverts are sociopaths (no soul, no down time to process the meaning of their lives and actions..so they can do the perpetual campaign while others end up exhuasted, no reflection). Extreme introverts may not make many friends and perhaps are too isolated to do much.. but the same extreme introvert may spend their whole lives doing good works (because it enriches their inner lives to make the world better with absolutely nothing in return).

We need to appeal to the 95% of the population who are fully human. Some fully humans are not that extroverted.. but spend their whole lives on social justice quietly...

Keep your words straight. IT MATTERS!

[gulliver]

10. I looked it up before posting...

... and decided to leave it "Sociableness". I have my reasons.

Sociableness is really sort of like friendliness rather than simply extroversion. I agree with you that both extroversion and introversion are wonderful personality styles.

You're right, I was implying empathy and sympathy, but there is another side (philanthropy, sociableness) that I also want to imply. People do more than empathize (identify with) and sympathize (suffer with). They actually care about other people being happy, being friends with other people, liking other people, nurturing other people.

I'm not trying to be all maudlin and syrupy either. I think it is scientific, healthy, and aesthetically good to like other people. This division of people for power as practiced by the current Republican leadership devalues us all.

[applegrove]

11. But Rove and Abramoff would be considered very sociable people.

So I worry about your words. They like the kill of their enemies, they like to diminish, covetous of anything good other people have and think if they "take" they "have it". A deep lack of understanding about the human condition is what they suffer. But they are also slap on the back types.

Whereas.. some egg working in an orphanage for his life.. may not be the most outgoing.. the most effective and connecting with others on a socialble level.. but within the systems of human connectedness..is doing much more to make the world a better place than either of those two.

A difference.. but an important one.

I don't think empathy is sappy. It is pretty much the only way to fly.

Empathy is how democracies work. And yes sociableness is important. But various people are good at it in different ways. At different times in their lives. What about someone who keeps to themselves while they get their life in order? If you run around making friends when you life is hell..is that sociable? Some people just are a little more cautious. Some people have the capacity for only a few friends. They just don't like to put their shit on other people. And your talk of sociableness misses out on people who go home to family or a few friends at the end of the day (in normal times) and live their lives that way. For sure they are not the connectors of the world. But they are just as common and important as everyone else.

I would think sociability is the exact wrong word. For talk of what is wrong with the tribalism the * WH tries to build within the USA. They are separating people but making them more social (according to how you use the term) within their own narrow group. Groups that serve the power ends and means of the GOP. Is bullying people into church with the threat of being socially outcasts if they don't comply.. sociability? Surely some people would find a link between their church and political GOP activism would result in more sociability in their lives. Certainly more attention come election time (can I drive you to the polls). And more hatred of gays (cause that is the pattern). And that is sociability. If everyone hating gays let's them bond..that has the potential for more sociability in thier lives (think of the people you would meet on a long mission of hate). But you are not gaging what those social connections mean in terms of democracy or the personal welfare of the whole.


It is a word that doesn't encompass any judgement on the end purposes. What does the sociability create? People who are afriad to stray from the group and so sliced and diced? Surely you have noticed how socialability is used to make examples of people who are either great Dem leaders or speak out.

The twin of creating sociability could be scapegoating. In some cases. That is why I worry about the word.

[gulliver]

12. I can't speak to whether Rove and Abramoff are sociable.

I think they are both masters of using the natural social (bonding, enemy-identifying) tendencies of others to get what they want. They may actually be sociable and likeable. Eva Braun loved Hitler. Caligula's sister loved him. Tom DeLay is apparently very companionable. Dick Cheney probably needs a pork chop to get the dog to play with him though.

I'm not trying to say that liberals have a monopoly on sociableness (and empathy and sympathy and philanthropy). It is universal. Liberals do make human prosperity a central tenet, though, and that is a strength. If the Republicans were not sowing dissension, if people actually took time to understand each other and get the facts, if people worked together, Republicanism as currently practiced could not exist. It only works now because people are so easy to fool, scare, and turn against one another.

Sorry if my choice of words worries you. You may be right. I'm really not proposing any solutions. If anything, I'm just trying to point out that natural and good human tendencies tend toward the central tenets of liberalism. The best part of human nature is on our side. But there are of course other forces at work, two of whom you noted.

[applegrove]

13. Thanks for acknowledging my points. I really think that what the two

people we mention are missing is any deeper connection in their social actions that just the surface action of being social or likeable. They are missing the humanity. And their actions and sociability serve to further only their own power needs.