Tradeoff

[Makaze]

If you could vastly improve one, and only one, specific trait in humanity (e.g. intelligence, imagination, trust, empathy, etc) what trait would you pick? What trade offs would you expect compared to other choices?

Edited December 29, 2016 by Makaze

[Phoenix Wright]

probably ingenuity, since it covers a bunch of bases at once, and that's probably our strongest quality.

[Makaze]

probably ingenuity, since it covers a bunch of bases at once, and that's probably our strongest quality.

How would you define it?

[Moblin Major General]

probably ingenuity, since it covers a bunch of bases at once, and that's probably our strongest quality.

The tradeoff, therefore, is morality. Our quest for understanding would compromise ethics exponentially. I would say my tradeoff would be reason for empathy, as logic would improve negotiation, and the lack of emotion associated with being purely logical means empathy is totally unnecessary, because everyone would hold the same understanding of everything.

[Phoenix Wright]

How would you define it?

essentially cleverness and inventiveness. being better at solving problems.

although, i didn't answer the part of the question that makes it interesting. will edit when i come up with something lol. i'm sure there's drawbacks, but i reject the notion that morality is it.

The tradeoff, therefore, is morality. Our quest for understanding would compromise ethics exponentially. I would say my tradeoff would be reason for empathy, as logic would improve negotiation, and the lack of emotion associated with being purely logical means empathy is totally unnecessary, because everyone would hold the same understanding of everything.

i don't see how this is the case at all.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Irysa]

Empathy would seem to intuitively be my immediate answer, but upon contemplation I'm of the opinion that understanding someone doesn't really have a direct correlation to cooperation or even good relations. People will still disagree as much as before and the fact many heinous actions can be done in a distanced way serves to disconnect the empathy that should prevent the action in the first place.

So instead I pick perception. Not merely on a visual observation basis, but our epistemic ability to process knowledge and information. I'm more optimistic that if humanity was better at this then we'd see eye to eye more frequently than we do now.

[Makaze]

The tradeoff, therefore, is morality. Our quest for understanding would compromise ethics exponentially. I would say my tradeoff would be reason for empathy, as logic would improve negotiation, and the lack of emotion associated with being purely logical means empathy is totally unnecessary, because everyone would hold the same understanding of everything.

I believe you made an ironic miscalculation in assuming that trading off empathy leads to common understanding. There is no rule saying that because logic is the same for everyone, it will be used to achieve the same goals. For two people with vastly different goals, both will have perfectly rational paths that nonetheless lead to direct contradiction and conflict, sometimes even requiring the death of one of the parties to appease the other. Understanding the logic used to reach a goal does not mean the same thing as understanding why they wanted the goal in the first place. That is a gap we could never bridge without empathy.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Makaze

[eclipse]

Huh, this is definitely interesting!

As strange as this will sound, I'm going to go with curiosity. But like any trait, it needs others to temper it (empathy, caution, etc.), lest the question "I wonder what it feels like to fire a potato gun into my face" is answered with physical proof. Likewise, there are reasons to not pry into things, like "why did she walk out of the Planned Parenthood offices?"

The saying goes that it killed the cat, but last I checked, humans are not cats.

[Makaze]

Huh, this is definitely interesting!

As strange as this will sound, I'm going to go with curiosity. But like any trait, it needs others to temper it (empathy, caution, etc.), lest the question "I wonder what it feels like to fire a potato gun into my face" is answered with physical proof. Likewise, there are reasons to not pry into things, like "why did she walk out of the Planned Parenthood offices?"

The saying goes that it killed the cat, but last I checked, humans are not cats.

The tradeoff would have to be privacy. Curiosity makes people pry into others' lives. With extreme curiosity comes extreme ethics violations. It might get to a point where everyone is a super sleuth and no one has a private life. How bad that is depends on the person, but it would be devastating for many.

[eclipse]

The tradeoff would have to be privacy. Curiosity makes people pry into others' lives. With extreme curiosity comes extreme ethics violations. It might get to a point where everyone is a super sleuth and no one has a private life. How bad that is depends on the person, but it would be devastating for many.

Privacy is only one of the things that'll be sacrificed. I imagine there's some questions that I'd rather NOT know the answers to, and with endless curiosity, someone's gonna try to find those answers. With no ethics, some of those answers may be horrific (as in, on the scale of war crimes).

[Makaze]

Privacy is only one of the things that'll be sacrificed. I imagine there's some questions that I'd rather NOT know the answers to, and with endless curiosity, someone's gonna try to find those answers. With no ethics, some of those answers may be horrific (as in, on the scale of war crimes).

You're right. This one might have the worst tradeoffs of any trait I've considered.

Adaptability. Our ability to question our thoughts and actions, look within ourselves, and improve our weaknesses

Can't really think of any trade-offs for this.

Similar to curiosity in a way. The more adaptable we become, the more risks we will take. People are stubborn and preserve status quo for a reason: It's a safe survival strategy. In the absence of increased intelligence, empathy, or creativity, just being able to adapt does not mean our ability to solve problems becomes better.

It is a good idea because it improves capacity for evolution, but it would be slower than most of the other options. We might make terrible mistakes because we can. But I'm not sure this traits is well-defined.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Makaze

[Refa]

Wouldn't we adapt to increase our intelligence, empathy, creativity etc.?

[Makaze]

Wouldn't we adapt to increase our intelligence, empathy, creativity etc.?

Eventually. This is arrogant to say, but if you want to imagine a world of highly adaptable people, willing to question every facet of their world and themselves, imagine a world of people like me. I don't think that is enough to make the leap to greater intelligence, for one. It might mean a world where people aren't afraid to improve other traits, but it doesn't mean a world where it's physically easier to do so.

Intelligence, empathy, and creativity are all traits that we as humans have control over. It is proven scientifically that intelligence is fluid and their are steps humans can take to increase their own intelligence. Empathy grows through making conscious efforts to understand other people, and even creativity isn't fixed.

The only thing stopping every human from self-improvement is either a lack of self-awareness, or apathy. With adaptability, we gain both self awareness and a will to improve. Over time, we will reap much more benefits than just "intelligence, empathy, or creativity", and there will be little to no downfalls, as with adaptability we can cover any weaknesses that may have been created along the way.

I define it as being a basic drive to overcome our own weaknesses. This is a very human trait, we all have the capability to look within ourselves, think critically, question our actions, and improve from there.

What is in a trait then? I would need more specific definitions of what defines a "specific human trait" in order for me to be convinced I was too broad here.

Is it adapting for evolutionary reasons (survival)? Personal reasons (independence)? That's what I mean. What you said is good enough. It would be personal reasons according to that. Weaknesses in personal willpower. When people question themselves deeply, break out of convention, social forces, and habits, they tend to become more anarchic, more self-motivated. On a larger scale, evolution would happen regardless of intent. I think it could lead to a more ideal social structure. Is that your intent?

Edited December 31, 2016 by Makaze

[Makaze]

I believe that over time humans will eventually come to form a society that both respects self-liberty, but also understands that the self cannot prosper unless there is at least some degree of community.

Something like social anarchism, which always is refuted as a fantasy due to human weakness, but in a society full of humans gifted with Adaptation I could see it working well.

That's what I was alluding to.

The real reason I'm trying to find a downside is the opportunity cost. The gains of increased intelligence are astronomically higher. Do you think intelligence can be vastly improved without leading to what you are talking about? I suppose intelligence doesn't mean you have a drive to be independent and adaptable, just that you are able to be, if you want to. So the drive is something else.

[Phoenix Wright]

i still can't really think of a downside to improved ingenuity...

except...hm...people with dubious goals in mind will be better at creating fake news/etc etc. that's pretty bad actually.

[Refa]

They'd probably be better at any dubious goals they had in mind, really.

[eclipse]

i still can't really think of a downside to improved ingenuity...

except...hm...people with dubious goals in mind will be better at creating fake news/etc etc. that's pretty bad actually.

One outcome is technical rulebreaking. Think of "that guy", the one that argues that the word-like shapes aren't actually words, so they're totally allowed in Pictionary. Now extend that to "I want this person dead, and I want to get away with it".

[Phoenix Wright]

yeah exactly. i think benefits would outweigh the costs in the end, but indeed we'd potentially see smart, motivated people become badder.

[Dwalin2010]

I would improve and increase a quality like empathy or altruism, things like that, in a way such a quality takes absolute priority no matter what, so that violent conflicts simply don't take place or die down. I mean, just to make an example, if a terrorist wants to blow up a theater or a marketplace for religious or political reasons, he is unable to force himself to activate the bomb, being overcome by emotions and thoughts about what his would-be-victims feel.

[eclipse]

yeah exactly. i think benefits would outweigh the costs in the end, but indeed we'd potentially see smart, motivated people become badder.

I honestly don't know about that. Let's take something with a ton of rules and regulations - the government. It didn't start out that way, but many of those inane rules and regulations were put in place because someone or other tried to game the system. I don't know if having a cat/mouse game with laws would be good for society.

EDIT:

I would improve and increase a quality like empathy or altruism, things like that, in a way such a quality takes absolute priority no matter what, so that violent conflicts simply don't take place or die down. I mean, just to make an example, if a terrorist wants to blow up a theater or a marketplace for religious or political reasons, he is unable to force himself to activate the bomb, being overcome by emotions and thoughts about what his would-be-victims feel.

This is a huge problem when triage comes into play.

Edited January 3, 2017 by eclipse