IMO you're not really saying what you're committed to. Saying 'We have a sense...', doesn't say what you're committed to yourself and any contradiction that might be pointed out with such a commitment.

Just seems to pass the buck on the inconsistency - how can puppets be hurt? And who/what at the strings has decided they ought not to be?

I really don't think the whole puppet idea and also using 'I' are at all consistent with each other. It's like pretending to be puppeteer AND puppet, whichever is most convenient at any given moment.

Doesn't mean it wont happen, though.

I'm not sure why you'd keep referring to someone as 'they' or acknowledge their reference to 'I' if you forgive them for anything. If the thing seen is just a puppet, you can forgive what occurred but would you go and refer to the puppet as it's own entity that is worthy of 'they' or using 'I'? Would seem odd.

Wouldn't that be like endeavoring to live your life like you have supernatural powers?

Not saying a person can't, but that'd be the decision.

>We like to think that we are making decisions based on preferences,
>
>but in reality what we prefer has been shaped by our genetics and environment/life experiences

Why are you treating those two things as different?

​

>this lack of free will implies none of us have true moral responsibility for our actions

Well, apart from the idea of 'true moral responsibility' being treated as if it exists like some kind of physics, where does such an implication come from?

I'm not sure how things can be 'factors beyond our control' and also there be any 'our'. If as an organism it's all 'factors beyond control' all the way down then there is no 'our' or 'I'. The view seems to keep personal identity as an individual ("I'm me!") but abandon responsibility as an individual ("I didn't do it, the factors did it!").

Well because the thing being done is being loved - that's not the same as oneself being loved. How can you feel 'you' are being loved if you wont formulate a sense of 'you'?

The other person referred to self regulating self - it seems odd to then just push the idea of self as always being having no perception of self, like cancer cells have no perception of self. Seems like the author and your idea of 'self' involves no self regulation component at all.

I presume as we are not family or friends of his then in his philosophy it's okay to tell us to make the life choice of not doing this?

Transactions, like trying to buy good shares that pay off in value and/or dividends, are risk taking as well. I really don't see evidence there of testosterone definitely leading to selflessness.

It's transactional, it's not giving anything away - it has the appearance of giving things away, much like a worm on a hook has the appearance of an easy to eat meal to a fish

Yep, they seem to have been fooled by the narcissists mask and see transactional as generous and prosocial

>Say what you will

Even if it's evidence based fact?

IMO a poor construct for 'generosity' and 'prosocial'

Run some tests where the high narcissists can give away stuff in a test scenario and nobody will know about it (the test says so - but it lies and records the results) vs regular generous people and see if your construct of 'generosity' holds up. Or whether they aren't generous or prosocial, they are transactional. They are just excellent at fooling researchers and others into thinking they are generous and prosocial.

When the shadows in the cave owe you something