Research on Human Nature Is Cause For Optimism
”We have a pending fortuitous marriage of science and morality of the most profound sort.”
The non-profit Edge Foundation recently asked some of the world’s most eminent scientists, ”What are you optimistic about? Why?” Neuroscientist Marco Iacoboni cited the new experimental work into the neural mechanisms that reveal how humans are hard-wired for empathy.Recall that empathy is more than compassion or sympathy with another’s situation. Empathy requires being able to ”put oneself in another’s shoes,” make a distinction between self and other, and then act on that perception. Empathy recognizes the other’s humanity.
We now know from brain imaging and psychological experiments that the same brain circuits are mobilized upon feeling one’s own pain and the pain of others. We know that separate neural processing regions then free up the capacity for an appropriate response. And scientists at the National Institutes of Health have discovered that altruistic acts activate a primitive part of the brain, producing a pleasurable response. Morality appears to be hard-wired into our brains.
Overwhelming evidence also indicates that the roots of prosocial behavior, including moral sentiments like empathy, precede the evolution of culture. Some 40 years ago, the celebrated primatologist Jane Goodall wrote about chimpanzee emotions, social relations, and ”chimp culture,” but experts remained skeptical. That’s no longer the case. According to the famed primate scientist Frans B.M. de Waal, ”You don’t hear any debate now.” The feelings of empathy identified in monkeys and apes are both the roots and counterpart to human morality, a natural inheritance from our closest evolutionary relatives.
And, following Darwin, sophisticated studies within biology suggest that large-scale cooperation within the human species, including with genetically unrelated individuals within a group, was favored by group selection. There were clear evolutionary benefits in coming to grips with others.
Because morality has biological roots and empathy is at its center, we have a pending fortuitous marriage of science and morality of the most profound sort. Of course the most vexing problem that remains to be explained is why so little progress has been made in extending empathy to those outside certain in-groups. Given a global society rife with violence, why doesn’t our moral intuition produce a more peaceful world?
Here I tend to agree with Iacaboni’s suggestion that externally manipulated, massive belief systems, including political ideologies, tend to override the unconscious, pre-reflective, neurobiological traits that should bring us together. For example, the fear-mongering of artificially created global scarcity may attentuate our empathic response. Another is the military’s refusal to allow putting a face on U.S. wounded and dead soldiers in Iraq. As Prof. Robert Jensen puts it, ”The way we are educated and entertained keep us from knowing about or understanding the pain of others.” This all conspires to make it harder to get in touch with our moral faculties and benefit from some valuable insights flowing from the new research on empathy.
First, the insidiously effective scapegoating of human nature that claims we are only motivated by greedy, dog-eat-dog, individual self-interest is now scientifically undermined. This rationalization for predatory behavior is transparently false. Second, recent research indicates that economic inequality is linked to high rates of biodiversity loss. Scientists from McGill University suggest that economic reforms may be the prerequisite to saving the richness of the ecosystem and urge that ”If we can learn to share the economic resources with fellow members of our own species, it may help to share ecological resources with our fellow species.” It’s entirely consistent to draw more attention to the potential for inter-species empathy and indeed, eco-empathy.
Finally, as de Waal implores, ”If we could manage to see people on other continents as part of us, drawing them into our circle of reciprocity and empathy, we would be building upon rather than going against our nature.” An ethos of empathy is an essential part of what it means to be human. Is it too much to hope that we’re now on the verge of discovering a scientifically based, Archimedian moral point from which to lever public discourse toward an appreciation of our real moral sentiments, which in turn might release powerful emancipatory forces?
Gary Olson, Ph.D., is chair of the Political Science Department at Moravian College in Bethlehem. His e-mail address is olson@moravian.edu. A longer version of this article, including sources, appeared at http://www.zmag.org.
© 2007 Morning Call Online
UP YOUR WAZOO, RELIGIOUS AND IDEOLOGICAL MORALISTS, “TRADITIONALISTS”, AND GREEDY SOCIOPATHS!
Is it too much to hope that we’re now on the verge of discovering a scientifically based, Archimedian moral point from which to lever public discourse toward an appreciation of our real moral sentiments, which in turn might release powerful emancipatory forces?
**Yes. It is too much to hope. Scientists are usually eons behind the thinking of philosophers and artists. There is nothing ground shaking about these so called discoveries.
Its like Darwin. Some people used his work to suggest that we are linked to the natural world(which was said for eons). Other said it showed we were superior to Nature. Science can and will be interpreted whatever way humans choose to.
Scientific knowledge is not wisdom.
The reasons are much better outlined here:
http://www.alice-miller.com
http://www.psychohistory.com/
Children who aren’t beaten, disrespected, emotionally abused, humiliated, or controlled grow up with a very different kind of human nature; the kind that can create world peace.
So child abuse is the cause of the world’s problems? Give me a break.
this kind of stuff is only important for dispensing w/eons of pseudo-scientific theory about innate human selfishness & corruption, you know the kind sponsoring (or justifying) puritanical/authoritarian/capitalist systems. but if you weren’t guilty of scientism to begin with…
and yes, Dr. Marvin Candle, ending the abuse of children would save the world. in one generation.
“all history is only one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their fellow men in order that they might win the joys of earth at the expense of others, and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others.”
(william graham sumner, american sociologist, 1840-1910)
this was true even in pre-capitalist times, but capitalism and the modern corporation are now the weapons of choice. capitalism provides the philosophical figleaf to conceal one’s empathetic shortcomings, and the corporation enables criminals to avoid personal liability for their acts.
jedediah,
I can only speak from anecdotal evidence, but the most dangerous people I have ever known were those who were pampered as children and the most respectful, peaceful, and trustworthy were those raised with strict discipline. So I just cannot buy those theories in the slightest.
The reason the pampered children, particularly boys, were so dangerous, is that they never developed self-discipline and as a result became frustrated failures, with the frustration and capacity for violence growing year by year. Of course they are not the sort to become competent enough to gain the power to endanger millions, like Cheney, but they still could never be considered healthy, well-adjusted, contributing members of human society or desirable friends or acquaintances.
The problem is not lack of empathy and never has been. The problem is that we only feel empathy for those we identify as members of our group. The settlers in the US certainly felt empathy for each other, but not for the Native American Indians, who were the “other.” Most Nazis felt empathy for their own friends and family members, but not for foreigners or Jews, who were the “other.”
The progress will come when humans accept that the human race comprises one group, and there is no “other” among humans. Of course some want to take it too far, trying to make the group all animal life or all life on earth, but by stretching it too thin the connection is too weak and the group identification does not and cannot take hold, and the do or die project to unify all of the human race fails.
It is the abuse of children, who are born innocent, happy, gentle, and kind that causes our problems in the world. Hitler was beaten, yelled at, and disrespected every single day of his childhood by his father and had no one who could interfere on his behalf, no enlightened witness to hear his sorrows and take his side; the result was that he grew up into someone who not only clearly had PTSD, but someone who, in a society that would never condemn his parents as abusers, set out to find scapegoats. The fact that his fellow germans grew up in the same kind of environment gave him his accomplices. (this information is all available here in this [now free, online but a world-recognized classic] book for anyone truly open: http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm ) The same is true for George Bush, who’s mother beat him constantly as a child; and for the battered children who now sign up as volunteer soldiers to fight and die for him.
The unexamined anecdotes people come up with don’t stand at all. Let’s not employ euphemisms, kival; what you are saying is that the “good” people you know were screamed at, robbed of their individuality, forcibly stripped naked and beaten on sexual erogenous zones until they screamed by their people who were supposed to be loving and protecting them while growing up. This is not only a crime, it will, even if they did have enlightened witnesses, greatly have inhibited their ability for progress, nonviolence, happiness, and peace. You contrast this with someone who you claim was “pampered.” First of all, the actual use of diapers on infants should be rather standard, and not a place for comparison. Second of all, it doesn’t matter if a child’s parents are wealthy and can give them things; what matters is if they are truly kind, truly respecting of the child’s feelings and emotions, allowing the child to say whatever they want to and respecting the child’s dignity and human rights as well as protecting them from being abused by people outside the home; that means not being “spanked” at any point, not being yelled at, not be insulted, not being left in the crib to cry for hours as a baby, not being forced into a way of schooling that does not fit the child’s individuality. A child who grew up in that environment will only be dangerous to a dictator and others who wish to quash any view that we can have a very different world than the one we currently do.
Violence only comes from violence; just like all rapists have a past in which they were sexually abused. But even when abuse doesn’t make people violent towards others, it still inhibits their progress, and gives them psychological disorders that will be wrongly treated with pills and more morality. This concept, in fact, is well illustrated by the recent article posted here about the Swedish pioneers in global warming; in the 1970’s, Sweden was the first nation who illegalized all corporal punishment and emotional abuse or degrading/humiliating treatment of children; making them full equal citizens and making way for the advanced society they have today. 13 other nations have followed suit; hopefully America will.
well said, Lellity. but the abuse of children is not simply a psychological problem, but a social one. children are also abused in a world of war, hunger, insecurity, etc., as well as by violence from their immediate social group (family, etc.) so yes, ending the abuse of children would save the world.
kivals, your second post about empathy extending beyond in-groups is well taken. but your first post…it’s too easy to point some spoiled rich kids and then call for “strict discipline” of kids. i don’t buy it.
Interesting comments that seem to come close to what I have concluded, sort of, about human nature…
We who have studied cultural anthropology are taught that there are many social structures and belief systems, ‘course, most Americans never hear of them except in Ripley’s “Believe it or Not”. Absolutely bereft of respect-of any kind.
I suspect that the concept of “the other” as partially identified by Margaret Meade has much to do with it all. I would go further to suggest that “tribalism” is a socially constructed norm that was developed millenia ago out a menu of survival techniques but that seems to have mutated into a social standard that is required in order to be “less like ‘the other’ than some within the group”. This alongside the inate lust for control over others to relieve oneself from toil.
There’s a perversity in this that has been celebrated for so long during social development of the last couple-few centries that we no longer have any concept of how to integrate the natural world into our socially constructed routines that keep us close to the members of our tribe/bridge club/church-group/high school football team/drinking buddies, etc.. We are all conditioned to believe that we “…can have it all” and that we are a dominant specie…(sociaety as well)… bull. We are “specie-centrists”… we’re all that matters and (whatever it is we think we want) so to hell with everything else.
Doesn’t matter how we got here anymore. It only matters to us that we survive no matter what, right?
I hope I go out in the first wave of population decline, I don’t like people all that much anyway; it’s the trees, flowers and all the other living creatures I can’t bear to live without.
All behavior is based on conflicting instincts that keep on erupting within the mind. Only lifetimes of daily education provide any chance to control them. Otherwise, humanity is a self-doomed species, as we see unfolding before us.
I wrote this article yesterday, admittedly based on my own experiences, but I think many people might relate to it:
Our deepest mystery
Gary Olson: “…Of course the most vexing problem that remains to be explained is why so little progress has been made in extending empathy to those outside certain in-groups….”
–I feel this topic is closely related to evolution, and (-please excuse!) has a *spiritual* aspect to it.
Human evolution is not well understood, esp when viewed only from a materialist angle. All major spiritual, not ‘religious!) teachers have taught that there is an important evolution inherent in human life.
One might refer to this as the ‘Evolution of the Soul’ for want of a better term.
It can be seen throughout history, that the more ’spiritually evolved’ a person is, the more they are philanthropic, ie: they are the very opposite of misanthropic, or sociopathic beings. These folk are sometimes referred to as, ‘Older Souls’ and would include such beings as Ghandi, M-L King, Christ, Buddha, FDR, Mother Theresa, et al.
One of the hallmarks of a psychopath (aka: sociopath) is that they have little conscience when it comes to empathising with another’s pain. This ruthless selfishness and egocentricity is the very opposite of that which the empathic, conscionable, ‘conscientious’ person innately feels.
My understanding of things, is that just as some individuals are ‘older souls’ - and thus more advanced in their loving, caring attitude towards others (who aren’t just of their own little social group or tribe) -so likewise certain tribes or nations have a more developed empathy (= a dearth of inherent xenophobic hatred) towards other ‘tribes’ or races.
I look at the current population of America and see an interesting dichotomy, with often very distinctive differences, -quite marked polarizations:
For brevity’s sake, one might first pick out the ‘older souls’ in America, (of which there are countless numbers, - some of whom read and write on Common Dreams!)
These are the thoughtful, caring individuals, who respond with wisdom, intelligence and compassion to the plight of others. ~Being more advanced, they also often care for those *outside* of the borders of the USA!
Less well-evolved souls will care only for a much smaller group; -maybe their particular region, -or religion, or only for their small family group.
And the very *least-evolved* people will only care for themselves: Gross selfishness is the hallmark of a low evolutionary status.
_________________
[A Note re abuse: - though it sometimes may play a part, such factors as an abusive background cannot be the sole indicator, as many another person who has been abused has still turned out very compassionate, et al. Indeed, -having suffered brutality can even increase empathic sensitivity.]
_________________
In the case of leadership of nations, it is important that people are led by the more evolved souls in their midst.
In the past, the US had some great ‘older souls’ to lead them, the likes of Roosevelt (FDR) for instance. In your present day you have the likes of that obviously ‘older soul’ Dennis Kucinich…
Unfortunately for the USA (and thence the world), a confused, somewhat debased people have allowed the less-well evolved ones to sneak into power.
That selfish simian, GW BuSh, is a good example of a very ‘young’ and unevolved soul, -one who is intrinsically unintelligent, brutish, utterly selfish, full of fatuous empty pride, and uncompassionate to most others, outside of his immediate little circle.
Rumsfeld and Cheney also display ‘unevolved’ characteristics, -they have a ’spiky profile’, and are essentially ‘maladjusted’ in the root meaning of that word; they have a developed *mental* body, and are ‘clever’ (= cunning), - but the rest of them is a morass of darkness: they lack love, compassion and empathy, they are totally ruthless, filled with hatred and fear, and display many of the hallmarks of the psychopathic personality in that they are ‘unconscionable’ (= they act without conscience towards members of their own species).
-Very sick beings indeed.
_________________
Some here might scoff at the word ’spiritual’ -sadly confusing that word with the messed-up religions that now exhibit all the signs of being worthless, perverted shells, (in many cases), but I believe that the ’spiritual’ aspect of our lives is very important, and rather than take on the rogue, emotionally-prone ‘churchianity’ at present so rife in the USA, we could more usefully look to the original Teachers, and see what they *actually* taught, (regarding ethics and morality etc).
_____________
Kivals said: “Of course some want to take it too far, trying to make the group all animal life or all life on earth, but by stretching it too thin…”
I disagree with this assertion because I believe the higher we climb up the ladder of evolution, -the more evolved we become, = the more *sensitive* we become, and then develop respect for *ALL* living things. ~This is certainly the Buddhist or Jain aspiration.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Many on C-D have commented on the US ‘red states’, -those inland areas where the ‘red neck’ (often more brutish?) contingent reside in large conglomerations.
People have then distinguished these areas from the ‘blue states’, -typically coastal areas where a seemingly greater grouping of ‘brighter’ and maybe more compassionate, ‘liberal’ type of people live.
Inherent in this observation we can maybe detect an acknowledgement of peoples’ innate understanding of the difference between ‘older’ and ‘younger’ souls?
And yes, -in such generalisations, my apologies to the very highly evolved souls who live in those ‘red’ states, -those folk who so often feel themselves to be very isolated, and not among their natural bedfellows!
But hey, ~the Older Soul’s impetus is ever to try to gently raise the consciousness of those who lag behind on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder, so such luminous outposts are a necessary service to their fellow beings!
With care and compassion for our human race,
U-C-D
xx
Uncommon Dreams: Thank you for pointing out the evolutionary spectrum from a spiritually enlightened standpoint.
The article says, ” ”If we could manage to see people on other continents as part of us, drawing them into our circle of reciprocity and empathy, we would be building upon rather than going against our nature.” Emphasizing its reference to the CIRCLE of reciprocity, once again I offer the analogy that it extends beyond coincidence that Jesus chose 12 disciples and Abraham founded 12 tribes. Our world was designed as a living mosaic peopled purposely with twelve types. A certain type has a gift for communication, another for analysis, another for poetic feelings. Can you imagine how boring this sphere would be without these imprints of diversity? Most psycho-analytic models extend from an authoritarian perspective. Let us not forget that education began as an extension of church doctrine, scribes were needed, reading was done primarily to share Bibles. There WAS no separation of church and state when academe originated. We still see the presumption there is a singular RIGHT way to think, be, believe and behave. People strive after this rigid external basis for approval because to not do so frequently means being expelled by one’s tribe.
I totally agree with uncommondreams that the greater the individual’s experience in terms of integrating lessons (lifetime after lifetime) the larger his or her capacity to connect to others. It is ONE world, ONE CIRCLE world, and twelve quintessential types make it go round.
To those who place the greatest emphasis on child abuse, plenty of nurses and caretakers come from abused backgrounds. So long as this planet opts for war, then violence begets violence and the “sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons” and daughters. What is felt in family life, which “Sleeping Prophet, Edgar Cayce” termed the hotbed of karma, is a legacy. No one likes hearing that the painful conditions they currently face may be part of a longterm plan that links to conditions THEY put into motion in another time, but for those of us who believe this is a lawful (Divine order) universe, what is taken for “the accident of birth” is a falacy. BAD things happen to good people, and some of these may be opportunities to transcend the ugliness by growing a spirit of compassion, and a capacity to forgive. This is a planet of raw emotion and blind force until ALL RISE (a very long evolutionary process) to the realization that what mystics term the great ONENESS is in fact, a fact. “Whatsoever you do unto the least of these is done onto me.” The Buddhists have a very cost-effective spiritual philosophy: Harm none. It’s not only a gift to “other,” it is a spiritual bank account for self. They understand that how they live in the present life conditions factors they will meet in the future.
By the way any who want to attack me for sharing this info, which is on the authority of GIFTED sages from other traditions, may wish to examine what it is they find so offensive. Truth is seldom convenient to that which the ego in its blindness adheres to.
Kelmer: Good points, thanks for sharing them.
(Sioux): “…Truth is seldom convenient to that which the ego in its blindness adheres to.”
-to which; I would simply append the favoured aphorism of Madame Blavatsky, ~ “There is no religion higher than truth” -alongside the better known, “There are none so blind as they who will not see.”
No, actually, if you read my post or the links I provided; i.e. if you actually tried to understand the argument I was presenting, you would have seen that the 30+ years of research in this area puts forth that children who are abused will turn on themselves or others unless there is an enlightened witness present in their childhood; someone who can sympathize and comfort with the child and affirm their inner knowledge that the abuse is wrong and not their fault. In cases of violent criminals, there was no person in their life who did this, either in childhood or in adulthood. Furthermore, I’ve personally known “nurses” who are condescending, emotionally unstable alcoholics who neglect children; so naming someone’s job is in this case irrelevant. “Good” attributes do not come from abuse; empathy is gained from being empathized with, and kindness comes from having been kind to at some point.
Mencius says, “Would anyone upon seeing an infant about to crawl into a well not immediately be moved to a heart of commiseration? This emotive response is not based on thoughts of self-interest, or fear of what others might think, or annoyance at the prospect of a crying baby. It is the heart of benevolence in action.” A rather extreme example, but meant to highlight what this article says, and Mencius loved in Warring States China, long before “scientism” showed up.
Another fascinating perspective on how and why morality develops, and why there is reason to hope we will progress as a species can be found in the book “Nonzero” by Robert Wright (who also authored the “Moral Animal”)
Wright’s main thesis is that we evolve culturally the same way that species evolve genetically: where maladaptive responses are gradually eliminated.
Check it out on Wikipedia.org or Amazon.com.
“Emphasizing its reference to the CIRCLE of reciprocity, once again I offer the analogy that it extends beyond coincidence that Jesus chose 12 disciples and Abraham founded 12 tribes. Our world was designed as a living mosaic peopled purposely with twelve types.”
It was? I’m amazed that you know these things.
Groan.