[Peter]

Because we are almost entirely a product of the environment (it can change, but maybe our whole life is like a general environment) and we have no clear idea of what our essence is. So we can not say: ‘the true me was good, but now this environment came and spoiled me.’ We don’t have an objective state to compare to, because we have never not been in an environment… Also the influence that the environment has is often not instantaneous, but gradual.

[Peter]

I think it happens way too often 🙁

[Peter]

A human being functions optimally when involved in positive relationships. Hormones bear witness of the impact of (the quality of) social interactions on the body. Even life expectency is related to (the amount of) social ties. People increase their learning ability when working coöperatively instead of competetively.

[Peter]

It would be good if the group has a clearly defined common goal, so no one can think: ‘I’ve achieved my goal,  so now I’m going to help others with their goal. Rather there is one goal for everyone together.

[Peter]

Individual 10 percent, collaborative 90 percent

[Peter]

I think people were willing to do even less, because they don’t get any recognition of their work. If it’s shredded there is still some importance adressed to it.

[Author]

Replies