Scientists: Humans are "Good" after all

[Gahars]

It's easy to get pessimistic about the inner nature of mankind. All the warfare, greed, intolerance, bigotry, ignorance, and Black Friday sales don't seem to paint a pretty picture of us at all. Many will admit, perhaps with a shrug, that we're a bunch of stinkers.

Well, it appears that a group of researchers would like to disagree with that notion.

A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively.

This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?

Scientific American

The results from all seven studies (which you can read about in more detail in the attached article) demonstrated that the subjects' first instincts and impulses were rooted in selflessness and cooperation every single time. (Ha ha, suck it, Hobbes!)

Does this mean that we'll all be sitting in fire circles and singing Kumbaya anytime soon? That warfare, greed, intolerance, etc. etc. are going anywhere anytime soon? That the age old debate has been resolved?

No, no, and ha, definitely no.

Still, though, this data shows that perhaps we are better than we give ourselves credit for - and perhaps not as nasty, short, and brutish as some would give us credit for.

Or, in short, it might be good in the brotherhood of man after all.

(And hey, if you're interested, here's an excellent video on the subject of humanity and empathy)

 

[dickfour]

Thank God that greed, intolerance, and violence are not going anywhere. I indulge myself in all those things and enjoy them very much.

 

[FAST6191]

I can not find the video but there was a pretty good documentary on snakes hibernating and how a handful of male snakes would wake up late, use female pheromones to attract the others and then get warmed up by the friction- there were many "good" snakes but there were also sneaky ones in among them all.

Somewhat less esoterically and maybe addressed in the sources but is looking at it as a whole a good idea? I mean most psychological models that would need to apply already break it down and have percentages.

 

[emigre]

After reading this news, I'm still going to treat everyone here horribly.

 

[dickfour]

After reading this news, I'm still going to treat everyone here horribly.

You're one of those bad snakes

 

[Shuji1987]

A biologist.. cum.. mathematician..?? Sounds credible.

 

[Devin]

Of course there's that whole nature vs nurture concept. Will someone who is nurtured to be evil, be evil? Or are they programmed from the start to be evil. If what I'm reading is correct they've said that it's human nature to be selfless, and cooperative but it's the type of nurture or lack thereof that makes us who we are. Interesting. I'll bring this up in my psychology class on Monday.

 

[FAST6191]

A biologist.. cum.. mathematician..?? Sounds credible.

I fail to see how it would not- even if smashing two traditional areas of science together were not where a lot of the interesting stuff is happening (or indeed the main places where people can reliably push the frontiers forward) biology has long been deeply entwined with maths (disease transmission, genetic probabilities, process outputs and more as well as whole fields like bioinformatics).

 

[Shuji1987]

I fail to see how it would not- even if smashing two traditional areas of science together were not where a lot of the interesting stuff is happening (or indeed the main places where people can reliably push the frontiers forward) biology has long been deeply entwined with maths (disease transmission, genetic probabilities, process outputs and more as well as whole fields like bioinformatics).

It's more that I'm stunned someone is willing to take on a job with such a title.

 

[Gahars]

After reading this news, I'm still going to treat everyone here horribly.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[Lanlan]

Those scientists have obviously never worked at Walmart.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not sure if I would call this innate goodness, more so a drive towards self-preservation of the species. I'm personally partial towards certain Behaviouristic ideas and I believe that our overall personality and morality is constructed on the basis of our experiences in the same way all organisms adapt to their surroundings.

When we're born, we have no experiences, so we cannot have a "personal" reaction that'd be the effect of the forementioned conditioning via experiences... however, we still have our innate instincts, and among them, the instinct of survival, and not only your own, but also of the other representants of our species. I think it only makes perfect sense that we'd react selflessly if we weren't conditioned not to - there would be nothing that could override the "pack instincts" in us.

 

[pasc]

Wow, lovely.

On a sidenote:
@Foxi4: Your name was that of my dog (minus the 4), kinda funny.

 

[Deleted-188346]

This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?

So very, very black and white.
Individual human behavior and personality is extremely complex. It's not just "yes" and "no" thing with behavior, it's a colossal range.
You can't just pick the extremes (impulse versus careful thought, selfishness versus cooperation) and say that they are the only decision-making states that a person can have.

And I agree with Foxi on the innate goodness part. Personality and behavior is, in my opinion, largely shaped by the experiences presented to the person. Keeping this in mind, think of the infinite amount of possible scenarios that can be presented to a person over their developing years. This, as you can imagine, will not just simply result in "they are either selfish or cooperative". They may be selfish in some scenarios or cooperative in most scenarios. They also may be somewhere in the middle, or leaning towards a side.

 

[The Milkman]

I think its less of a question of whether were born evil or raised evil, and more of a question of how its defined by us. After all, Right and wrong are far more important to us then Good or Evil. For instance, if I am raised thinking say, people with blue eyes are evil, does that make me or people with blue eyes evil? Does that make my parent evil for raising me to think someone with blue eyes is evil? If im born with a dislike to the color blue, and in turn do not like people with blue eyes? make me evil?

If you ask me, nobody can truely be evil or good, we cant be born evil or raised evil, because we honestly cant define evil without it becoming a question of whats right and wrong. People we see as "Good" can do wrong thinks and vise versa. Niw what we think is Right and Wrong can be affected by nature and up-bringing. But certainly not Good or Evil.

 

[chyyran]

What is this blasphemy? Everyone knows that the human race is, and forevermore will be hell-bent on destroying one another.

Now toss me that gun.