Safe Speed Forums

Its the same type in different situations. Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Unless you feel up to a proper, reasoned debate, then please keep your half-baked notions to yourself.



I've tried to be patient with you, even when it has meant slow going. But there is a limit.
If you can't keep up, please feel free just to read, without submitting any more irrelevant
rubbish.



As usual, you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I'll get you up to speed, then please try and keep up with us.
The reason why animals are subject to selfish motivations is because of natural selection. It helps.
There is no discussion about "win state to driving" - you have made that bit it up, although I'd like to
get onto that later. You're not ready yet.

So, be a good chap, and from now on, stick with the thread, keep it relevant, and stop irritating us.

Thanks.

I wish your clock would stop...

There is no-one in the world who is so ignorant that they can't realise that selfishness is a benefit in some circumstances.
I've given you two (Titanic, lane closure) - do you seriously think that there are only two circumstances, like the twice a day that a stopped
clock is right? Come off it - selfishness pays off very often, and you know it as well as I do, even if you can't admit it.

PS: Having thought more about what you say, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even though I suspect you are
just being a naughty trouble maker out to cause the maximum disruption by printing vile and disgusting
lies about me.

So, now that you have the benefit of the doubt, how will you go about redeeming yourself?
We know that humans are animals, we know that selfishness is a formidable asset formed through
natural selection and we know that drivers will be subject to selfish thoughts all the time,
even if they don't act on them - we are human, after all.

So, what other benefits of selfishness (or benefits of altruism) can you suggest, to move things along.
We've given you a few starters, so use your imagination, if you have one.

By acting altruistically to the community he is also possibly hoping for or even encouraging reciprocation therefore benefiting himself. Altruism can be selfishly motivated, though possibly unconsciously, I am thinking of Dawkins' grudgers here.

Taking this a bit further, what is enforcing behaviour on others which you believe to be benefit to the community? Is enforcing altruism selfish?

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

This is more like it. The Selfish Gene is the book that most people say they've read, but haven't, evidently! I must get around to reading the second half of it!!!
I managed all of "a brief history of time", but remember much less. I kinda remember those bits about game theory and grudgers etc. Excellent - I'm sure we act that way.

I actually think it's rational to act altruistically if there is some spin off benefit later, as you say, even if the benefit is abstract, or even religious or quasi-religious.



This is where politics enters the stage. Despite all the rubbish heaped on politics, it is (at the end of the day), simply "all of us, making up our minds".
Political constraints/laws seem to be selfish and altrusitic at the same time, don't they? Depending where you stand.

More than once and several of his other books too.

Dawkins does make the point, iirc, that you have to be careful in how you apply his ideas in the Selfish Gene to human behaviour. Our motives and needs are often dictated by more than the imperative to propagate ones genes, as I am sure any psychologist could confirm.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

To be motivated to look out for oneself is not selfish, in and of itself. To exercise that motivation to the detriment of others is.

I'm afraid Aber, that despite your clumsy attempts to suggest otherwise, I am streets ahead of you in both reasoning and intellect, not to mention machine control and appreciation of the systems involved in driving. I have no need to "redeem" myself on any platform, and certainly not to you. The only person being irritated here is you, as I will not let you post your ill thought out tripe unchecked.

The genetic natural selection of Darwin, as commented upon by Dawkins, in no way applies to the road situation. It relates to survival in a limited system, where there are not sufficient resources for all to flourish and grow, and where the goal is propagation of the species. This is not the case on the roads, and thus our actions need not be contentious; everyone can complete their journeys in a safe and timely manner without acting in ways which detract from that end state for others.

The stopped clock analogy was to illustrate that simply because an outcome is correct, or desirable, does not mean that the method by which it is achieved is correct. Thus a correct action borne of wholly self-serving motivations does not make selfishness a desirable trait in drivers. Similarly altruism of course, but we can come to that later if the discussion warrants it. I'm sorry if this was a little too esoteric for you, I shall try to dumb things down in future, so that you can keep up.

You've dodged so many of my questions thus far that I hold out little hope the following will be answered, yet I ask it all the same in the vain hope that you decide to join the debate proper, rather than sniping and obfuscating: Having established that, in the case of zip-merging at a choke point on a multi-lane road, a desirable outcome can be brought about by self-serving motivations, how do you feel about the following selfish behaviours, and their impact on the road system and it's users:

Blocking non-hatched junctions in stop-start traffic,
Hogging L2/3 on multi-lane roads,
Impeding drivers who wish to progress whilst under no time pressure yourself,
Impeding slip-lane traffic from L1 when L2 is available for your use?

Incidentally, if you had read Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene", even the first half, even the first chapter you would be aware that he does not advocate selfish behaviours, based on the lessons of evolution. Quite the opposite, and I believe he would rail at the idea of you misusing his work in an attempt to justify selfish behaviour on the roads.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

The dodging of my question aside: can you really imagine road craft being based on the principles of survival (Darwinism)? What a horrifying concept!


Titanic: Selfishness prevailed because of:
- the slow realisation the Titanic wasn't unsinkable (some realised it before others).
- the extreme vanity of some of the stiff-lipped hob-nobs who don't want to appear rushed (well it was the maiden voyage of the flag-ship of the seas, toffs a-plenty on that trip).
- the lack of guidance for what to do in those situations (why give the impression to the well-paying toffs that the ship was actually sinkable?).
- the lack of proper crew training to get people off as fast as possible.

So yes, in that case selfishness (the proper definition of it) did prevail, but so much has been learnt since then. Nowadays, all these factors coming together are so remote as to be negligible. It sure as heck doesn't apply to zip-merging anyway!

Lane closure (bypassing L1 when zip-merging): nope! I've blown that idea out of the water with justification (still not refuted) as to why that theory doesn't work (don't want to be disadvantaged). You can't claim it as an example without the necessary counter logic.


Your desperation to prove the selfish behaviour of 'slowpokes' (as well as your own selfish attitude towards driving) as being somehow righteous is becoming more extreme.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Not forgetting that there were limited lifeboat spaces on the Titanic, the very epitome of a contentious situation!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Well said. At this point we have limited time to debate such side issues, so this is a contentious situation as well. So let's speed things up a bit (hope I don't hit an iceberg!!!)

Now let's recap at this point. We know that selfish instincts are rife in the population, presumably due to natural selection. That might imply that selfishness is good for us that have survived.

Furthermore, we have identified at least one case where yielding to selfish impulses results in an improvement for the whole population. And we've identified another case where yielding to selfish impulses results in a benefit for the individual. I expect there are trillions of the latter, and several of the former, but who knows - it's not relevant. If selfishness is good on some occasions, then that that's, isn't it? You'd have nothing to argue about!

So, is there anyone still out there who doubts that it is sometimes beneficial to yield to selfish impulses, or do we need to go over any of it again?

At the risk of topic drift...



Darwinianisim is misunderstood.

Its not "survival of the fittest", Its "The survival of the gene line that produces the most breeding offspring".

Which is why the gene for Sickle cell anaemia survives in Africa!

And Which is why hi-tech, centrally organised civilisations will collapse in time.

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

Survival of those most fitted to survive.
After all, the fittest blokes are busy running around being fit, while others are back at their [fittest blokes] houses ensuring that their genetic line is guaranteed survival ( at the fittest blokes cost) !
After all, if I was really unselfish, I would steer my vehicle into a tree/ditch/truck to let an overtaker live longer !
Now, is that being unselfish ?
Or stupid ?
Or unselfishly stupid ?
Or: so selfish that you are stupid ?

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Believe it or not, I already knew that but I was replying to (what I thought was) the context of how 'natural selection' was used within this thread. "Most breeding offspring" definitely doesn't significantly factor in road craft - especially zip-merging!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Ah no, 'steering your car into a tree', whilst you are a taxpayer, is still selfish. You wouldn't be funding those who are overly selfish who prefer to screw around and get on the housing ladder for free, instead of working to provide for themselves - like the rest of us.

How would an 'overtaker live longer' if you were to steer your car into a tree?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I agree. Darwinism has produced a human that is not the ideal "road craft" sort of guy. The effect of natural selection has been to produce an average guy who is too selfish and emotional for driving well. That's why pdavid, squirrel etc. were bitching about standards on the other thread. Bad driving is all around us like the weather, as I patiently tried to explain to one overwrought chap.

But, pressing on, it seems that there are specific examples where selfishness is the best policy, so my interests are served. But now are there any specific examples where altruism is the worst policy? That should stretch their minds, eh Dusty?

I certainly think that is worthy of a thread on it's own. It is possible that one profound effect of the credit crunch
will be to force people to re-assess their needs, rather than assuage their desires. That might be a good
thing if it resulted in more independence, less free-loaders and middlemen, and greater resilience.

We might even reap the long-promised rewards of industrial automation - more free time. So far,
we've had less, the more robots we put in! What a waste of time, eh?

Hm... I'm feeling generous, so I'll say nothing...

Back on the original example of lane merges causing, I have three points:

1. I am not someone who ever tries to impede other motorists. If someone wants to merge in, I tend to let them. If people start merging 800 yards before they need to, by the time we get to the cones, I'm a bit sick of letting people in. So I can understand the emotion which makes selfish people want to obstruct "last minute mergers". However, if overcautious people hadn't started merging 800 yards previously, I would not have felt like I had already let my 'fair share' of mergers in by the time I got halfway there. So in a way, it's the early mergers that cause the ill feeling later on.

2. Lane merges are far worse at roadworks than at the ends of dual carriageways. Why is this?

3. Lane merges are far worse at weekends, which can only be down to numptyism by low mileage drivers.

You would be wise not to judge others by your own standards


No it's not, it never is. The best policy is to make sure we are equipped to deal with the situation; selfishness could only prevail when these other policies have failed. Know the highway code, or sort out the evacuation system and be prepared to do something 'out of character' when needed.


That can only happen through lack of knowledge or understanding of:
- the acting individual, they may not understand what is needed or simply screw up their procedure, or
- the others affected by the actions of that individual, they may have a different interpretation of the outcome.
Belief and/or common definitions are key factors here, for this you need to look no further than systems based on faith for your examples.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

And I bet you're hung like a horse as well, eh? Hm...



Try not to demonstrate your naivety so openly. Most drivers aren't even aware of the source of their motivations, so why would they drop millions of years of evolutionary pressure. Because you say so?



It's good of you finally to admit that self-serving motivations can result in a correct action. That's one "ice berg" out of the way.



That's your normal standard, chum, and it's not getting better with time.



Whoa, that's a big move from driving can only be cooperative of everyone is being considerate of others, and cooperating.



And he does advocate altruistic behaviour either, IIRC. Unlike you, he's a scientist who tries to be objective and non-judgemental.