I don't know if that's an innate characteristic of our species, or reflective that we are still evolving socially and culturally, and have a lot of progress to go yet.
- 1
What would be the correct traits for humans irl?
- Thread starter Kryndude
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I don't know if that's an innate characteristic of our species, or reflective that we are still evolving socially and culturally, and have a lot of progress to go yet.
Those are helpful statistics and without knowing how aliens behave we won't know for sure whether you're right. But I'd wager those countries are still highly individualistic compared to a hivemind. I know it sounds mental but what about the idea that those people are assimilating to cultures they're born in with the goal to help their own standing in the process? I think the only good indicator of collectivism vs individualism is whether or not the person is willing to charge into machine gun fire to help some greater war effort. WW1, kamikaze pilots, and suicide bombers are examples that humans are capable of that. On the other hand a decisive factor in sacrificing your life in those cases is to be remembered as a hero by one's family and country. So even then, it's still self-serving.
Anyway, I did say Individualist, not fanatic Individualist.
This is a very perceptive point. I have encountered the fact that humans, compared to other primates and taking proportions into account, have much longer gestation periods and have unusually extended neoteny than any other animal. So on our planet we are certainly slow breeders. I hesitated from pointing it out because I suspect that all sentient species are like that. Takes a lot of resources, time, and experience to create a functional being that exclusively relies on intelligence to survive and develop. But we are all working on assumptions.
About your ethos point. Primates form rigid hierarchies that are challenged by ambitious individuals but once the competition for power is settled everyone easily falls into line. So Authoritarian is good. Xenophobe is good too if we're looking at primates, they kill and eat their same species if they're from a gang a few kilometres away. But primates aren't spiritual, only humans exhibit that and we are nowhere near as xenophobic as primates. Also some humans are very spiritual but most just seem to largely ignore it and if they ever exhibit spirituality its for brief moments, mainly when they're old and about to die (back to the me me me, individualist nature of humans). But even then it's not a guarantee. Personally, something about Xenophobic and Spiritualist doesn't ring true for humans in my opinion, but our dabbling in them means we aren't the opposites of them either.
So how does just Militarist and Authoritarian sound?
This is essentially what I was getting at. Same with spiritualist. We've had some bumpy spots growing up, but there are strong cases in the other direction during that time too. The French were excellent at assimilating, fucking, and marrying all the natives they got their hands on. While their neighbours, The Netherlands, were the most brutal slavers and pirates ever. With spiritualism we had religious wars but the world more or less readily accepted the theory of evolution based on overwhelming evidence even though the main face and the scientists behind it wanted to kill the gods of our ancestors. We are too all over the place on Xenophobe vs. Xenophile and Spiritualism vs. Materialism to take any definitive stance.
Perhaps we're looking at it wrong, maybe it shouldn't be the overall tendency of the species but the ethics of the government that will run our space empire. That would be the UN, they're egalitarian, materialist and xenophiles. Human rights, Science/education/environmental reforms, and pro-open borders and diversity.
Last edited:
Deviant. Deviant is a given, everything else is up to interpretation but if there's one Stellaris game mechanic I'd use to define humans it would be ethics divergence.
...I mean just look at this discussion XD
...I mean just look at this discussion XD
- 5
- 1
The guy's data i quoted, he is a sociologist who studies different dimensions of culture; individualism vs collectivism is one of his basic divisions, here is his direct definition: "The high side of this dimension, called individualism, can be defined as a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of only themselves and their immediate families. Its opposite, collectivism, represents a preference for a tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. A society's position on this dimension is reflected in whether people’s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “we.”"
-I dont know what to do with hive mind, as there is no will or culture, its something else entirely, not really applicable to humans i think?
-Improving one's standing in life is called ambition, which is a character trait you will find in any human society/culture, no matter through which prism you observe it. I dont think its a reflection of any particular cultural dimension.
-Eh i have to disagree. What you are describing is called altruism, willingness of one to sacrifice themselves for a greater good. Overall it is true that it has been an ideal or a trait that was celebrated in collectivist societies (and ideologies), however the example you listed is probably the worst possible you could have chosen, as a level of this is absolutely necessary for any army to function. Look at the infantry drill for example, the whole point of training soldiers is to reduce the level of "i" and enhance/create the sense of "we"; when youre in the field there is nothing else in the world, other than your unit. This is done in order to create cohesion among men, a unique kind of bond that allows them to become something which is more than adding together a mere group of individuals, it modifies their ability and allows the group to be many times greater than the sum of its parts. One of the 2 greatest ranking countries on individualism are US and UK, just look at the list of their military medals recipients and i bet you will find at least 2/3rs of those people getting medals precisely for their willingness to run straight into machinegun fire. Thats basically what a "hero" is.
-A decisive factor in sacrificing oneself in such situations is the survival of the collective (and through it one's own family). Being remembered is irrelevant.
- 1
- 1
Informative. The only problem I find is that if a person has ambition to serve the collective instead of themself they would be more altruistic and run into the gun fire. You said Individualist countries field the strongest militaries by promoting this type of collectivism within it. Don't you see the cognitive dissonance there? At least the measurement this sociologist has been using isn't the most accurate model or at most the US and UK is more collectivist than we thought. But we're particularly talking about the militaries here. Seemed almost like a collectivist trap while I was reading your post. Doesn't it seem strange the most individualist countries have a huge collectivist apparatus for people to join?
I think the problem is we don't share the same definition of collectivist, probably my love of sci-fi is doing that. But "individuals are expected to take care of only themselves and their immediate families" sounds identical to "individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty" or "sacrificing oneself in such situations is the survival of the collective (and through it one's own family)". While we agree individualist is about the me's and mine's a more appropriate view of a collective society would be like a hivemind, or Sheng-ji Yang Human Hive from SMAC. That is the collective end of the spectrum if you fully apply it. Every individual believes they are a mere cog in a great machine, they don't have an ambition like you or I, their ambition IS the government's ambition. This is why I said Individualist. We are so individualist that even our term for collectivist means individualist.
A society that is polite, follows tradition, and respects their elders is not some Collectivist haven just because of that. Everyone learns growing up in their culture how to play their culture's games for benefit. But we are also a malleable species and are ready to hold two antithetical positions at the same time, which is why I also went with communal. This conversation is probably part of the reason why it was changed to Authoritarian vs. Egalitarian which I'm just realizing.
First post.
I think the difference here isn't a individualist-collectivist dichotomy at the individual level, but more on the societal level. Specifically, I think that a collectivist society is a society organized to function as a stratified, rigid system, where everyone has a preordained place, and there's little to no room for individual initiative. An individualistic society, on the other hand, isn't a "everyone for himself" thing, but rather, a society designed to allow a great amount of individual initiative, and still function effectively as a society.
Following the previous example of military units with a strong sense of the collective, fielded by countries with strongly individualistic societies, the issue is, I think, choice.
A stratified, collectivist system would field conscripts, because that's their place, no choice given. An individualistic society usually fields volunteers, who take up arms by choice. They become part of a sub-society that emphasizes collectivist attitudes, but they do so by choice.
Counter-intuitively, altruism can only really flourish on individualistic societies, because only a individual with the initiative to make judgement calls can make a personal judgement, placing himself in the scales and measuring himself against some goal. That's the kind of thing that births heroes.
I think the difference here isn't a individualist-collectivist dichotomy at the individual level, but more on the societal level. Specifically, I think that a collectivist society is a society organized to function as a stratified, rigid system, where everyone has a preordained place, and there's little to no room for individual initiative. An individualistic society, on the other hand, isn't a "everyone for himself" thing, but rather, a society designed to allow a great amount of individual initiative, and still function effectively as a society.
Following the previous example of military units with a strong sense of the collective, fielded by countries with strongly individualistic societies, the issue is, I think, choice.
A stratified, collectivist system would field conscripts, because that's their place, no choice given. An individualistic society usually fields volunteers, who take up arms by choice. They become part of a sub-society that emphasizes collectivist attitudes, but they do so by choice.
Counter-intuitively, altruism can only really flourish on individualistic societies, because only a individual with the initiative to make judgement calls can make a personal judgement, placing himself in the scales and measuring himself against some goal. That's the kind of thing that births heroes.
For ethics I think you'd have to take the aggregate. Extreme militarist, definitely. Moderately collectivist. Sad, but that's us in the aggregate. Liberal democracies are the exception, not the rule in human history, and even liberal democracies are armed to the teeth. It's not the Humans I play though. I usually do hardcore technocrat humans, Extreme Materialist and Individualist.
Traits is harder since we really don't have any other sapient species to compare ourselves to, but comparing ourselves to at least multicellular life in general on Earth and to intelligent multicellular life in particular (other simians, dolphins and orcas, elephants, african grey parrots, corvids), I'd venture to say: Extremely Adaptive, Decadent and Weak.
Nasty little buggers, we are.
Traits is harder since we really don't have any other sapient species to compare ourselves to, but comparing ourselves to at least multicellular life in general on Earth and to intelligent multicellular life in particular (other simians, dolphins and orcas, elephants, african grey parrots, corvids), I'd venture to say: Extremely Adaptive, Decadent and Weak.
Nasty little buggers, we are.
i recommend the Jverse series if you want to lose a month to HFY fiction.
anyway anthropology student here to spread my knowledge to the people weather they like it or not.
-Bipedalism, seriously this is a huge thing that effects so many aspects of our biology.
-it allows up to much more efficiently traverse long distances than any other living thing. its literately what we were made to do so if their was an endurance trait we would have it.
...
While I accept most of the other points bipedalism does nothing to help traverse anything. Compared to any four legged creature (most whom can sleep while standing) standing alone is more energy intensive. Arguably it could help in broken terrain but just look at what mountain goats do, no hands and still climbing stuff which will give anyone but dedicated climbers a heart attack.
What makes us long distance runners/walkers is sweating through the entirety of our skin surface which extends our capacity to cool down and control our body temperature in hot conditions when other mammals are very limited in their temperature control (usually mostly panting or even being forced to doze in some shadows) which means we can be more active in times where other predators will chill in the shade or prey is more prone to be weakened by heat exhaustion if chased.
Religiosity is an emergent system of culture springing out of spirituality and communality, not in itself a fundamental thing so religion very well may go away, just not our predisposition to use anthropromorphic concepts assigned to reality to cope with it or seeking traditions and bonding rituals to feel safe in our social group.
In essence the first civilizations had religion as the foundation to enforce hierarchical social structures and giving command authority to individuals beyond the immediate social group of families or clans. This essentially remained the way of legitimizing individuals enacting autocratic power over the majority of populations until Europeans invented the guilliotine and started beheading a bunch of those God chosen aristocrats till we agreed democracy aka a controlled and fluid hierarchical system might be better idea.
There is an important distinction between individual spirituality and the organized institution that is religion, particularly in its purpose. One used the other, but from that it doesn't follow the one using the other is in itself a base trait of humans.
- 1
- 1
- 1
Neither collectivist nor individualist would fit for humanity as it would lock away either democracies and autocracies, both of which have been quite common throughout our history.
- 1
I personally gave my humans the traits adaptive (we can survive in almost any environment on Earth, unlike most other creatures), quick learners (no particular reason for this one) and slow breeders, due to the tendency that developed societies have to exhibit low birth rates, and also thanks to fact that humans do produce less offspring than most animals on Earth.
.png){kind=avatar}
What ever gave you that idea? The most important factor to human dominance on the planet earth is probably our sweat glands, with our intelligence probably not even making the top ten.
It might help to remember that we were already the dominant species on this planet before we ever developed the first tool.
- 3
you are correct he's spouting gibberish. for one sweat is only helpful in "gasp" hot areas and we were nowhere near a dominant species until anatomically and culturally modern humans appeared. it is 100% our brain power that made us successful.
.png){kind=avatar}
Nomadic (Hunter-Gatherer hominids constitute over a million years of human history, sedentary living only a few thousand. Modern history has a romantic view of exploration and seeking beyond new horizons, pioneering spirit, etc so it works in that same vein too)
Adaptive (Humans have permanent populations on every continent and environment on Earth except for Antarctica, even the Sahara)
Deviants (Human cultures are incredibly diverse, individuals constantly attempt to challenge the status quo. We also need a negative trait, and this is the best fit)
Quick Learners is also acceptable. Humans are born early and undeveloped. They are sponges for their environment and are constantly learning new things as they grow. Other animals are much more instinctual and less of an blank canvas. We have no aliens to compare ourselves to, same as for the other traits, so we can only make educated guesses, and one assumption we might make is that due to our unique biology (cranium, bipedalism, small hips, undeveloped infants), we also rely far less on hard coded behaviors compared to a hypothetical alien species.
For ethos, it's much more up in the air. I think Spiritualist is a must. Atheism/Materialism etc didn't really exist in any meaningful, widespread form until a few hundred years ago, and even now, even with less religiosity within Western societies, we're still incredibly spiritual. Even extends to things like astrology, belief in fate or hidden meanings, luck, something greater than ourselves, etc. Our governments might not be spiritual in nature, even outside modern times, but the populations certainly were and are.
Xenophobe is also a good one. Nationalism, patriotism, tribalism, factionism, and so on are all the exact same thing. People based their personal identity off a some notion of an "us", always in conflict with some abstract "them." This "us" and "them" can take whatever form. And history is definitely not on our side. Without fail, anytime one culture meets another culture, and one of these cultures has the means to conquer, assimilate, or exterminate the other, it happens.
Final ethos I can't decide on. I can see arguments for Militarist (most advanced, agrarian civilizations are in a near constant state of war since prehistory), Individualist (similar reasoning to Deviants, but doesn't work so well for Stellaris-brand Individualism since its based more on egalitarianism/liberalism) and Collectivism (probably the strongest contender imo, most human societies are authoritarian in nature, individuals typically strive to advance their own group even at their own personal expense, although there's a bit of overlap with xenophobe for this one. Only Western societies are really anti-collectivist)
Adaptive (Humans have permanent populations on every continent and environment on Earth except for Antarctica, even the Sahara)
Deviants (Human cultures are incredibly diverse, individuals constantly attempt to challenge the status quo. We also need a negative trait, and this is the best fit)
Quick Learners is also acceptable. Humans are born early and undeveloped. They are sponges for their environment and are constantly learning new things as they grow. Other animals are much more instinctual and less of an blank canvas. We have no aliens to compare ourselves to, same as for the other traits, so we can only make educated guesses, and one assumption we might make is that due to our unique biology (cranium, bipedalism, small hips, undeveloped infants), we also rely far less on hard coded behaviors compared to a hypothetical alien species.
For ethos, it's much more up in the air. I think Spiritualist is a must. Atheism/Materialism etc didn't really exist in any meaningful, widespread form until a few hundred years ago, and even now, even with less religiosity within Western societies, we're still incredibly spiritual. Even extends to things like astrology, belief in fate or hidden meanings, luck, something greater than ourselves, etc. Our governments might not be spiritual in nature, even outside modern times, but the populations certainly were and are.
Xenophobe is also a good one. Nationalism, patriotism, tribalism, factionism, and so on are all the exact same thing. People based their personal identity off a some notion of an "us", always in conflict with some abstract "them." This "us" and "them" can take whatever form. And history is definitely not on our side. Without fail, anytime one culture meets another culture, and one of these cultures has the means to conquer, assimilate, or exterminate the other, it happens.
Final ethos I can't decide on. I can see arguments for Militarist (most advanced, agrarian civilizations are in a near constant state of war since prehistory), Individualist (similar reasoning to Deviants, but doesn't work so well for Stellaris-brand Individualism since its based more on egalitarianism/liberalism) and Collectivism (probably the strongest contender imo, most human societies are authoritarian in nature, individuals typically strive to advance their own group even at their own personal expense, although there's a bit of overlap with xenophobe for this one. Only Western societies are really anti-collectivist)
Last edited:
Look up "persistence hunting"
That's what he's talking about. He's wrong, but that's likely part of what he's referencing. Humans are great endurance animals, even compared to something like a horse, especially over incredibly long distances and in great heat. Sweat glands are only a small part of this, since even horses can sweat, but that's the only thing I can think of.
"It might help to remember that we were already the dominant species on this planet before we ever developed the first tool."
Also this is just hilarious. If you want to define humans as modern homo sapiens, we never even developed our own stone tools. The technology existed long before our own species. We're talking something like 3 million years before modern humanity. You know what humans were doing 3 million years ago? Second-rate scavengers picking the scraps and marrow off of carcasses after the other scavengers already had their fill. So much for "dominant species."
Last edited:
Well aware of it. I'm just not sure how it's remotely possible to go from that to "dominant species on the planet", haha. Or rather, how it's possible to conclude that humans were ever the dominant species on the planet before we developed tools- since tools are what allowed us to expand out of our tiny evolutionary birthplace.
He's a person who got all his information second-hand after reading a post made from some other guy who read a Wikipedia article once.
Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it, because you're obviously higher than a freaking comsat.
Dominant species? Before we developed the first tool, we were the choice snack for a number of big predators (like the cavern lion) We may not have been at the bottom of the food chain, but we were definitely a few steps from the top.
Dominant species ON THE PLANET? Humanity got started in Africa, most likely the northern region, and from there it spread to the rest of the world. And that, my weed-puffing friend, is something that could only be achieved AFTER we became tool-users (and fairly proficient at it, too) The alternative would be swimming across the Bering Strait on the way to North America by way of Alaska, AFTER a nice long hike - stark naked - through Siberia.
So no, we did NOT become tool users after we were already the biggest boys on the block. Rather the inverse, we became the biggest, baddest boys on the block BECAUSE we became tool-users.
We made the tools, and the tools made us.
- 1
- 1
I've thought quite a lot about this subject, and I think that Paradox, sense they had to choose, did a decent job choosing a workable and sensible trait set for humans, mostly because it is small.
I'm firmly in the "you couldn't say" camp. All of these traits are relative, and we don't have any other sapient creatures to compare ourselves to. (Apes, Dolphins, and Elephants are the closes we have)
If I had to choose then communal and adaptable would make the most sense to me.
As for ethics, well, I'd like to think that our ancestors will go into space as Democratic Egalitarian Xenophiles, but I suppose if things don't go the way I'd like we could end of as Authoritarian militarist.
I'm not going to name any names, but we sure do have a lot of HUMANS ARE HORRRIBLLLE MONSTERES WHO LIKE KILL EACH OTHER AND STUFF AND ARE RUINNG THE PLANET!!!111 assholes on this thread.
I'm firmly in the "you couldn't say" camp. All of these traits are relative, and we don't have any other sapient creatures to compare ourselves to. (Apes, Dolphins, and Elephants are the closes we have)
If I had to choose then communal and adaptable would make the most sense to me.
As for ethics, well, I'd like to think that our ancestors will go into space as Democratic Egalitarian Xenophiles, but I suppose if things don't go the way I'd like we could end of as Authoritarian militarist.
I'm not going to name any names, but we sure do have a lot of HUMANS ARE HORRRIBLLLE MONSTERES WHO LIKE KILL EACH OTHER AND STUFF AND ARE RUINNG THE PLANET!!!111 assholes on this thread.
- 4
Quick Learners and Deviant.
I have found that the largest hindrance to trying to teach someone something has been using too large of words or words and terms they do not understand. People get overwhelmed with nomenclature and don't get the chance to understand the actual subject. Having explained things without using too many terms, I've managed to see even the 'dumbest of rocks' understand relatively complex topics.
And given that the traits and such are designed based off humanity, I can see deviant as the most logical, since it'd most accurately reflect a diversity of ideas, which humanity currently has.
For my OWN purposes... I modded my game to have 2 extra human factions and decided to alter them from the base humans simply to imply that their culture and way of thinking over the years, apart from Earth, have changed them in ways where the people of Earth seem strange.
I have found that the largest hindrance to trying to teach someone something has been using too large of words or words and terms they do not understand. People get overwhelmed with nomenclature and don't get the chance to understand the actual subject. Having explained things without using too many terms, I've managed to see even the 'dumbest of rocks' understand relatively complex topics.
And given that the traits and such are designed based off humanity, I can see deviant as the most logical, since it'd most accurately reflect a diversity of ideas, which humanity currently has.
For my OWN purposes... I modded my game to have 2 extra human factions and decided to alter them from the base humans simply to imply that their culture and way of thinking over the years, apart from Earth, have changed them in ways where the people of Earth seem strange.
- 2