Is cheating natural?

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: Annee

Biologically i agree. Psychologically we are not animals anymore. Some still are, but we are striving for something better no?

One would hope. I'm not sure if that's so in actual reality.

Some animals have very complex social structures. As far as their consciousness --- can we really know for sure?

What humans have is written language. They have the means to learn from their past. And yet they continue to repeat the same mistakes.

And humans are destroying earth with over population and greed.

animals don't build nukes. Stop comparing humans to animals because humans are the most unnatural *thing* living on our planet.

Are skyscrapers natural? Concrete Jungles? Maybe if you have lived in one your entire life you wouldn't know the difference between the forest and home.

a reply to: LittleByLittle
Absolutely agree with you their. It is very hard if your god is money or power to be any other way as you will always put money and power above honesty in your value system. The current individuals/entities that run the world could not be honest if they tried. But then satanists do have a different moral code and it seems that many of these people are probally satanists ( if the truth was known) or at least athiests with funny spiritual beliefs that dont really gell with athiesm. Some professions such as polititions, msm reporters, spies and some salespeople and businesspeople would find it very hard to be successful at their jobs if they didnt tell lies and cheating and deceit is even encouraged in a lot of these professions. It would be very hard to find an honest politition. When distrust becomes so high in a particular politition he/she is just replaced and the cycle seems to repeat itself
If you cheat in a lot of your number one cases which usually involve personal relationships you will rightfully eventually lose friends or your partner if you continue to be deceitfull. I believe to cheat on your wife/ husband destroys the hidden dynamic (relationship energy field) in a relationship even if you do not get caught and this can show in little and suttle ways and nearly always prevents couples being as close to one another as they could. The same is true with friendships only to a lesser extent and the deceit is harder to pick up.

I would say that if you follow the idea of evolution, and that we come from apes or whatever, that given that animals 'cheat' on their animal spouses, that yes, it's natural. Animals aren't meant to be with one mate because it would slow down population. Plenty of humans say that sex is just for continuing population, so we can then say that both humans and animals are similar in that aspect, as well.

Is cheating the right thing for humans to due given that population is fine, and how easily sexual diseases spread? No. But there's a lot of different dynamics to different relationships. And if a couple want to have an open relationship and be with other people, or whatever, it's not my place to tell them that it's unnatural.

I would say the answer is - no, cheating is not natural.
If you consider the fact that emotional pain like rejection and disbelief (being lied to) are processed and reported to the anterior insula and the anterior cingulate cortex parts of the brain. These are the same parts of the brain that gets activated by physical pain. In other words when you are betrayed and/or rejected by your partner (i.e. when you catch a cheating partner) the same neurological processes happen than when you would've been physically hurt.

So, why would cheating be "natural" if we are hardwired (i.e. nothing to do with society) to experience a negative feeling when we are cheated on? In evolutionary terms physical pain we experience is a signal which told us to stop what we were doing or to take alternative action. I'd say the same goes for emotional pain. If cheating (or in other words being cheated on) was natural, then our brains would've been hardwired differently.

For your leisure, some additional reading material:
The Brain Takes Rejection Like Physical Pain
Emotional and Physical Pain Activate Similar Brain Regions
Why do we experience physical pain?
Cingulate cortex - Wikipedia
Anterior cingulate cortex

And so on and so forth.

originally posted by: Gemwolf
I would say the answer is - no, cheating is not natural.
If you consider the fact that emotional pain like rejection and disbelief (being lied to) are processed and reported to the anterior insula and the anterior cingulate cortex parts of the brain. These are the same parts of the brain that gets activated by physical pain. In other words when you are betrayed and/or rejected by your partner (i.e. when you catch a cheating partner) the same neurological processes happen than when you would've been physically hurt.

So, why would cheating be "natural" if we are hardwired (i.e. nothing to do with society) to experience a negative feeling when we are cheated on? In evolutionary terms physical pain we experience is a signal which told us to stop what we were doing or to take alternative action. I'd say the same goes for emotional pain. If cheating (or in other words being cheated on) was natural, then our brains would've been hardwired differently.

For your leisure, some additional reading material:
The Brain Takes Rejection Like Physical Pain
Emotional and Physical Pain Activate Similar Brain Regions
Why do we experience physical pain?
Cingulate cortex - Wikipedia
Anterior cingulate cortex

And so on and so forth.

Because we've been programmed that way. We're taught from a young age that having one partner is the way it works. The majority of people don't find out about the different dynamics of a relationship (open relationships and the like) until they are much older. If we started teaching kids that it's okay to have multiple partners, if we only showed programs on TV that show people in multi-person relationships, we would see things change. It would be a 'natural' feeling.
We are what society makes us.

a reply to: Gemwolf

It depends on what level of evolution you're talking about imo. I saw a bit on IFL Science this week about penis size. It mentioned that longer was better for procreation as the design would allow for the removal of competing sperm. That doesn't speak to monogamy. I mean we're going WAY back here. Then we evolved.

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic

Because we've been programmed that way. We're taught from a young age that having one partner is the way it works. ...

Nope. It's a physical connection in the brain. You can't program your brain to feel pain (or not) or feel just certain pain. The emotional pain (the feeling of disappointment) of being deceived is a very natural one. Take a look at a child's face when he/she discovers you've been lying to them - it's not programmed; it's a natural human emotion. Cheating on a partner is deceit and will therefore trigger the accompanying emotions. Not only that - you will feel inferior and rejected because your partner chose another partner over you, which will also trigger those same feelings. There is simply no amount of "programming" that can de-pogram love, and the above-mentioned emotions all form part of the love emotions.

Even in "open relationships" and cultures where polygamy is acceptable compared to normal western cultures, you'll find jealousy and feelings of rejection - still the same painful emotions.

That being said - let's pretend we could "de-program" all those emotions - why would you want to? We've got a huge problem with STDs where monogamy is the actual standard. Imagine the problems if multiple partners were a free for all...?

I'm not saying that open relationships are a good thing, because given that population is at a high, and people are often deceitful (I would assume a large amount of trust has to go into open relationships). But really, if that's what someone wants, I'm not going to judge them. I just hope that they are being smart and that they are using a condom with all of their partners, as sexual disease are not something that every person would want to be stuck with.

a reply to: intrepid

That makes sense, but I'm sure evolutionary speaking the our brains took the forefront at some point in time, and everything else took a back seat. Because I'm sure if evolution kept going the way of "size" we'd be a three-legged species by now.

a reply to: Lyxdeslic



Completely agree with you on that one. And on that point - if we look at many fauna (and some flora) species where monogamy is not an issue, we still have a situation where many males' focus are the survival of their own offspring and not necessarily that of the species. For example if a new male lion takes over a pride they would chase away or kill the previous alpha male's cubs. You see the same behavior with many animals.
Humans were designed in pretty much the same way - one human male's sperm will kill another man's sperm if they came in contact with each other - or at least try. (See Dr. Lindsey Doe's work amongst other.) So, yet again we see that humans are not designed/evolved to have multiple partners...

a reply to: Gemwolf

Totally. Just sayin that there's junk in our evolutionary history that is fighting against our evolutionary history. Depending on what part you're looking at.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
I was having a conversation with a friend of mine and you know you have one conversation on a topic which leads to another topic and so on and so on. So I forget what actually lead us to this. My friend was making the allegation that it is natural for us as humans to cheat. That when we look at nature there is cheating by animals. he gave the example of a bird who builds a nest and another bird comes and takes that nest.

I countered and then said "I don't think it is natural for us to cheat I think Natural Law comes into play. And that generally humans want to abide by Natural Law.

he then came back and said haven't you ever had the urge to cheat? And I know now were getting into the territory of Nietzsche and his sayings on the topic of Urge's and all that.

I still say that it is not natural for us as humans to cheat. and philosophically I believe cheating is not natural. There almost contradictory of one another. hence the term cheating the system.

I would like to know what others think is cheating natural and do we as humans just fight our natural urge to cheat? Most of us anyways.

Hey there, I do not fight my cheating moments. These are part of survival game.
Said that, cheering is a shortcut. Sacrifice truth for the moment to gain bigger truth.

Imo.

Cheers

a reply to: American-philosopher

Very difficult, and a good question. What exactly defines "commitment" - in my mind, only a set of vows can achieve this. In that case, you have made a formal choice, and witnessed, to be loyal to one and only one. It is human discretion that makes us what we are, and asking if something is "natural" is pointless really because we are not animals anymore.

It's not natural, it's one of the things that is supposed to distinguish us from the other animals, as being rational... And there are animals that mate for life.

originally posted by: Emma3
... And there are animals that mate for life.

I question that --- specific to mammals, as humans are.

I'd say it's probably more myth then fact. And lack of knowledge.

Indeed, the “faithful” behavior of the gibbons forms an appealing natural narrative, but we now know that such stories were far too good to be true. scienceblogs.com...

a reply to: Annee

I believe it happens, even if, say, not every gibbon is like that, some probably are. And it's not just gibbons anyway. Besides, what matters most is what I said before that: being rational and respectful towards one another is supposed to be what distinguishes us from the other animals.

a reply to: American-philosopher

Is cheating natural? I suppose one could argue that any deviant act is natural. Murder for example, must be natural as it happens constantly in nature. See this article: Link

But what separates us from animals? Our supposed intelligence does. Knowing right from wrong and being able to restrain from doing wrong. Such as murder. Even though it's assumed that some animals do it naturally, it doesn't make it right. Cheating is a sign of low morals and the absence of ones own ability to control their urges. Sounds like the type of people I tend to avert in life.

originally posted by: Emma3
a reply to: Annee

I believe it happens, even if, say, not every gibbon is like that, some probably are. And it's not just gibbons anyway. Besides, what matters most is what I said before that: being rational and respectful towards one another is supposed to be what distinguishes us from the other animals.

It seems you did not read the article.

From the article:

The realization that gibbons “cheat” and “divorce” leads us to a very important realization; there is a difference between social monogamy and reproductive monogamy, the presence of one not necessarily indicating the other. This illuminates the fact that reproductive monogamy is much rarer than previously thought, mating being a much more opportunistic affair than one dictated by social bonds. Indeed, there may very well be advantages to being socially monogamous that are distinct from reproductive monogamy, the pair bonding of gibbons perhaps having much more to do with defending a territory (and hence resources) than whatever sense of long-term affection was attributed to them previously.
scienceblogs.com...

The article also says basically "we see what we want to see", but facts often prove otherwise.

a reply to: Annee


Still, that's not my main argument. Besides, gibbons are not the only animals that do that. But it doesn't even matter if that happens to be true to gibbons or even all the other animals that are supposed to do that, my point is: respecting others is a characteristic that's supposed to be what distinguishes us from the other animals. Why the constant comparison? Like Auricom said, you can't justify things like murder by saying "oh, animals do that too, you know?".

originally posted by: Emma3
a reply to: Annee

Still, that's not my main argument. Besides, gibbons are not the only animals that do that. But it doesn't even matter if that happens to be true to gibbons or even all the other animals that are supposed to do that, my point is: respecting others is a characteristic that's supposed to be what distinguishes us from the other animals. Why the constant comparison? Like Auricom said, you can't justify things like murder by saying "oh, animals do that too, you know?".

Humans are animals, mammals to be specific. Some mammals, other then humans, have very complex social structures, and probably show more respect for each other then human mammals?

What mostly distinguishes humans is written language. The ability to evolve and learn from those who came before us.

"Why the constant comparison?" ----- Why do you keep responding to it? Because you think your viewpoint is more valid?

Or did "god" make humans special?