On Human Nature

On Human Nature

The traditionalized notion of an inherent “human nature” is a reoccurring topic in progressive (and anti-progressive) conversation.I prefer to conceptualize the issue as a scientific hypothesis for the sake of conceptual clarity.

Hypothesis: there is a set of inherent distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting that is inherent to all humans.

This hypothesis is employed to argue against social change. The observed (and unacceptable) phenomena of war, poverty, greed, and corruption are in many political and ideological circles deemed to be the result of something that is wrong with the human species. I would hope that even at the reading of such a hypothesis, readers can recognize its preposterousness. For a brief overview of my sentiments, I turn to H.G. Wells:

"The anti-progressives of the early twentieth century loved to assert that "Human Nature" never altered; to imagine that the men of the Stone Age felt and thought like bank clerks picnicking in a cave, and the ideas of Confucius and Buddha were easily interchangeable with the ideas of Rousseau, Karl Marx or De Windt. They were not simply ignorant, but misinformed about almost every essential fact in the past experiences and present situation of the race." (The Shape of Things to Come, Volume 2)

It may be helpful to initially point out the origin of this hypothesis, that being the religious duality between good and evil. For thousands of years, the religions of the world have maintained this notion that some people are bad because they are controlled by the devil or some other supernatural corruptive force. Before the inventions of psychology and sociology, blaming the abstraction of an immutable, supernatural intercessor seemed to be the most logical solution. Even more interestingly, causing the population to believe in the maliciousness and, thus, inferiority of humans served their political and monetary interests. However, in the twenty first century, the commonly held viewpoint that defends the “human nature” hypothesis stands as an embarrassment to our civilization.

The “human nature” hypothesis begs the following questions in my mind:

·         “Why is it that some humans do not seem to exemplify this nature at all?”

o   Why wasn’t Mother Teresa a war monger and Wall Street investor?

·         “What determines the extent to which this nature is exemplified by a particular individual?”

o   Why are some people more violent than other?

·         “What causes these characteristics to reoccur in humans?”

o   Where does it come from?

In terms of the apparent selectivity and extent of these characteristics, faith is one answer. According to many theists, proclaiming allegiance to the supernatural will be reciprocated with a grant of the ability to overcome these forces. There is a better answer, however, one that is complex in its simplicity: human behavior is environmentally determined. In other words, the extent to which a human individual acts according to “human nature” is relative to their lifestyle or background. Interestingly, this answer provides the counter-hypothesis to the human nature fallacy.

 Counter-hypothesis: Humans behave in a manner determined by culture, attitudes, emotions, values, ethics, authority, persuasion, coercion, and/or genetics.

Our counter-hypothesis will enable a better understanding of the “causes of human nature” issue. The most common position argues that genetics are to blame for human nature. This could make sense. It would at least explain why humans would not have been able to alter their behavior in the time span of recorded history, as genes take thousands upon thousands of years to alter through mutation. This would at least account for the reoccurrence of negative societal attributes such as war. However, the belief is unfounded in the evidence provided by the map of the human genome.

Rather than explaining an unchanging pattern of action and thought and humans, the studies of human genetics and brain chemistry have done much to support the human behavior counter-hypothesis. As it turns out, attitudes and behaviors are created by the exchange of electrical signals throughout the brain, which are heavily influenced by the relative concentrations of nuerochemicals. Incidentally, the human’s environment is largely responsible for how much of each chemical is produced in the brain.