10 February 2022 
10 mins There is a persistent myth that by their very nature humans are selfish, aggressive and quick to panic. It’s what Dutch biologist Frans de Waal likes to call veneer theory: the notion that civilisation is nothing more than a thin veneer that will crack at the merest provocation.4 In actuality, the opposite is true. It’s when crisis hits – when the bombs fall or the floodwaters rise – that we humans become our best selves
If we believe most people can’t be trusted, that’s how we’ll treat each other, to everyone’s detriment. Few ideas have as much power to shape the world as our view of other people. If we want to tackle the greatest challenges of our times – from the climate crisis to our growing distrust of one another – then I think the place we need to start is our view of human nature.
The phenomenon of the general misanthropy, cynicism, and pessimism seen in the world today has been categorized as a clinical symptom of the mean world syndrome. A driving force behind this syndrome is unsurprisingly, news and the social media. The deep impact of such sensational news on our minds can be explained through
- Negativity Bias - Being negative about things like being frightened or cautious is always more beneficial rather than being confident or positive.
- Availability Bis - if we can recall examples of events, we tend to believe that such events are rampant.
The veneer theory is not a new one. For centuries, philosophers and social critics have anchored this negative view in our minds steadily. Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that humans are innately wicked, "solitary, nasty, brutish and short". While, Rousseau, though he claimed that humans were kind in the "olden days", but civilization ruins us. Interestingly, albeit proclaiming the negative view of humanity, the solutions they propose are contradictory. Rousseau's solution is more liberty and freedom, while Hobbes solution is more control and taming of human wickedness. These solutions are still being proposed at various levels and various degrees in our modern world.
Anthropological & Psychological Perspective
From a biological perspective, Dmitri Belyaev and Lyudmila proposed a radical theory that domestication or selection for the "friendliest" made hormonal changes to animals - causing more serotonin and oxytocin to be produced and more "cute" physical features to develop. The cute features are a positive reinforcement causing humans to be more friendly towards the animals. The animals were friendly not just towards humans but to one another as well. They further went to proclaim that humans are domesticated apes. Furthermore, additional evidence showed that domestication - i.e. selection for the friendliest also improved mental capabilities - domesticated animals were more astute and cleverer than their wild counterparts. Current standing is that human toddlers excel at all 4 intelligence tests - Spatial understanding, Calculation, Causality, and Social learning, while other primates like chimps and orangutans excel at only 3 of the 4 - failing miserably at the social learning test. This social learning abilities and cooperation may have been the prime force behind the survival of homo sapiens and the extinction of Neanderthals during the last 100,000-year ice age. Even anthropologically speaking, the author shows that there is lack of proof that our early ancestors were war-mongering savages.
'The Hobbesian image of humans, judging from the most common evidence, is empirically wrong,’ Collins asserts. ‘Humans are hardwired for […] solidarity; and this is what makes violence so difficult'
From a behavioral and developmental perspective, early societies had various ways of organizing themselves peacefully as good social relations provided way more benefit.
Power distinctions between people were – if nomads tolerated them at all – temporary and served a purpose. Leaders were more knowledgeable, or skilled, or charismatic. That is, they had the ability to get a given job done. Scientists refer to this as achievement-based inequality.
At the same time, these societies wielded a simple weapon to keep members humble: shame.
Another way early societies kept people in check (domesticated themselves) was through punishment, albeit rarely. Aggressive personalities had fewer opportunities to reproduce, while more amiable types had more offsprings. With the advent of agriculture around 10,000 years ago, civilization started. According to the followers of Rousseau, this is where the problem of violence and widespread negativism of human nature started. With additional supporting evidence, and the simultaneous debunking of veneer-like theories from Stanford prison experiment, Easter Island history, Milgram's shock experiment, and the Robbers Cave experiment, the innate pacifist nature of humans always surfaces. But the human interest in our supposedly violent nature is always strong.
In other words, if you push people hard enough, if you poke and prod, bait and manipulate, many of us are indeed capable of doing evil. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. But evil doesn’t live just beneath the surface; it takes immense effort to draw it out. And most importantly, evil has to be disguised as doing good.
... Many years later, psychologists would reach the same conclusion (as that of Hannah Ardendt's) about Milgram’s research: the shock experiments were not about obedience. They were about conformity.
Nazism begins ten miles behind the front line,’ scoffed one German prisoner, whereas friendship was right there in every bunker and trench.
However, modern armies train so that soldiers shoot more often and without hesitation - a sort of Pavlovian reaction. Such soldiers incur PTSD at alarming rates.
In modern armies, comradeship has become less important. Instead we have, to quote one American veteran, ‘manufactured contempt'.
Group identity, familiarity, belonging-to-a-group, these emotions are way stronger than we realize. These fundamental and innate feelings are responsible for all our actions - good or evil. These emotions are so overpowering that they cloud our discernibility between good and evil- even feel apathetic and towards the impact of one's own actions.
One of the effects of power, myriad studies show, is that it makes you see others in a negative light.13 If you’re powerful you’re more likely to think most people are lazy and unreliable. That they need to be supervised and monitored, managed and regulated, censored and told what to do. And because power makes you feel superior to other people, you’ll believe all this monitoring should be entrusted to you.
Tragically, not having power has exactly the opposite effect. Psychological research shows that people who feel powerless also feel far less confident. They’re hesitant to voice an opinion. In groups, they make themselves seem smaller, and they underestimate their own intelligence.
We tend to pick the most modest and kind-hearted people for the position of power. However, once they rrive at the top, the power often goes straight to their heads. Myths and organized religions helped people in power to remain in power - to bring together people albeit sustaining the intrinsic power inequalities. Yuval Noah Harari's book the Sapiens argued that telling stories - religions and myths - brought people together in larger groups - larger than the nomadic societies could handle. People sharing the myths could cooperate better.
In a hierarchically organised society, the Machiavellis are one step ahead. They have the ultimate secret weapon to defeat their competition. They’re shameless.
You could even see the history of civilisation as an epic struggle against the biggest mistake of all time. Homo puppy is an animal that has been wrenched from its natural habitat.
Economic & Sociological Perspective
The standard economic perspective that humans cannot motivate themselves is becoming less and less true in modern work culture. With most of the mundane tasks being relegated away to robots and machines, humans are choosing work that they actually like - our of sheer interest and self-motivation. The scientific management culture (where employees are micro-managed and evaluated on various metrics) that is still prevalent in modern offices always result as attestation for the maxim "If a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good metric" (Goodhart's law). Jos de Blok's technique of management is seen as more effective in modern work culture.
Interviewer: How do you motivate your employees? Jos: I don’t. Seems patronizing.
"The world benefits more from continuity than from continual change."
- Jos de Blok
Similar negative view has plagued our education system as well. Kids are corralled into classes and sections based on their skills and abilities and interests. All kids need is guidance and not enforced qualities. Children need to be left to their creativity and playfulness. Homo Ludens.
..philosopher Ivan Illich said decades ago: ‘School is the advertising agency which makes you believe that you need the society as it is'.
Time and again, researchers remark on the fact that almost everybody has something worthwhile to contribute – regardless of formal education – as long as everyone’s taken seriously.
Modern psychologists propose non-complementary behavior as a rational measure for dealing with violent and unsavory behavior. This includes the ideologies of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, and even Jesus.
“It’s really very simple,’ explains Bastøy’s warden, Tom Eberhardt. ‘Treat people like dirt, and they’ll be dirt. Treat them like human beings, and they’ll act like human beings.'
The American scholar (Gordon Allport) suspected that prejudice, hatred and racism stem from a lack of contact. We generalise wildly about strangers because we don’t know them. So the remedy seemed obvious: more contact.
Allport's theory, called contact hypothesis, is a crucial step in bringing people together and combating racism. Separation is not the solution, but the cause. More contact and interaction is the cure.
But what also came out of these studies was the finding that a single negative experience (a clash or an angry look) makes a deeper impression on us than a joke or a helping hand. That’s just how our brains work. Initially, this left Pettigrew and his colleagues with a puzzle. Because if we have a better memory for bad interactions, how come contact nonetheless brings us closer together? The answer, in the end, was simple. For every unpleasant incident we encounter, there are any number of pleasant interactions. The bad may seem stronger, but it’s outnumbered by the good.
To believe people are hardwired to be kind isn’t sentimental or naive. On the contrary, it’s courageous and realistic to believe in peace and forgiveness.
Lessons
- When is doubt, assume the best - We tend to have the negativity bias, or the nocebo effect. Address this bias with assuming the best of other people. Don't be ashamed to do good.
- Think in win-win scenarios
- Ask more questions
- Temper your empathy, train your compassion and try to understand others - Having faith in others is as much a rational decision as an emotional one.
- Love you own as others love their own
- Being kind to others is the new realism
All the above excerpts are attributed to their original author(s). Book info -
Bregman, Rutger, Humankind: A Hopeful History, 2021. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN-13: 9780316418522 ISBN-10: 0316418528