Mankind’s Race

Mankind is in a race with itself to determine whether we can comprehend the cause of our eternal warfare in time to prevent the warfare from consuming us.

It is not looking good.

Early returns indicate that we are programmed to be tribal territorial animals that compulsively war with one another, and to form belief-based subtribes that furiously defend their beliefs as irrationally as they do territory. The fiercely defended beliefs need not be religious beliefs, but can be secular beliefs equally well.

Catch-22 is that part of our prevailing, irrationally defended beliefs is the belief that, unlike all other animals, our behavior is determined by reason rather than by instinct. We tend to become outraged (an animal reaction) whenever it’s suggested that our human species programming might be the cause of our glaringly evident tribal territorial animal behavior.

Thus whenever Science, in the form of neuroscientists studying the brain, uncovers evidence that we may not be as “rational” as we believe, that subconscious brain processing may indeed affect our judgment and our behavior, we rise up in anger to attack these heretics and their odious “evidence.” It does no good to point out that the evidence also shows we are not “robots having no control over our behavior” but are capable of modifying and overriding it; once a tribal belief is violated our instinct is to destroy those violating it.

While we readily agree that such behavior is clearly evident in our enemies, those who question or oppose our beliefs, we are astonished and dismayed at the suggestion that our own tribes may behave in the same way. It seems that unconscious brain processes not only bias our perception in favor of existing beliefs, they also blind us to that bias.

We are now at a potential turning point in human history, the point at which Mankind finally acquires sufficient understanding of its own nature to begin diminishing its self-destructive behavior. But, alas, standing in the way of this new enlightenment is our certainty that our groups and our tribes are not part of the problem, but that all competing groups are, and if they would only cooperate with Us, peace would reign.

Rather than give up the tribal animal pleasure we experience zealously blaming and attacking ideological enemies, we are more likely to irrationally ignore or deny the evidence of our shared culpability and continue in our suicidal race to oblivion. As Mark Twain observed, “It is not worthwhile to try to keep history from repeating itself, for man’s character (nature) will always make the preventing of the repetitions impossible.”

Why Can't We All Just Live In Peace?

This once rhetorical question now has a definitive answer: We do not live in peace because we are tribal territorial animals predisposed to war with one another, and to form subtribes based upon beliefs - political, religious, and social - that we defend as fiercely and irrationally as territory.

Our human species' programming ("the hidden programming controlling human behavior") is now being revealed through the research of neuroscientists studying how the brain functions.

Based on that research, Man by Nature presents a "Tribal Programming Theory of Human Behavior" that explains how our persistent and consistent irrational behavior is the direct result of our species programming. The theory answers many of the questions that have perennially plagued the human race.

How Can We Be Both Good and Evil?

Easily: Good arises from an instinct to be caring, protective, and altruistic toward tribemates, and Evil arises from an instinct to dominate or destroy other tribes.

Why Aren't We Aware Of The Instincts Affecting Our Behavior?

A well-documented brain function "rationalizes" any unconsciously initiated behavior, making us believe the behavior was due to conscious reasoning. Yes, this is astonishing and dismaying ... but it has been thoroughly proven.

Are We "Robots" Incapable Of Modifying Our Behavior?

Clearly not: We have been modifying our behavior with beliefs throughout our existence.

Given Our Predisposition To War, Is There Hope For Mankind?

There is always hope: The Enlightenment spread slowly, but inexorably. The new knowledge of the underlying cause of our warring constitutes a "New Enlightenment," which may eventually enable us to develop workable war-avoiding accords and disarm.

Explaining Bias

The ability of fMRI scans to detect which modules of the brain are active during cognitive processes provides a crude, but nonetheless revealing window into how we “think”: it allows testing whether some of our gross assumptions are true or not.

For example, a widely referenced July 2006 Scientific American “Skeptic” column by Michael Shermer proclaimed, : “A recent brain-imaging study shows that our political predilections are a product of unconscious confirmation bias.”

The column related that shortly before the 2004 presidential election fifteen subjects who described themselves as “strong Republicans” and fifteen who described themselves as “strong Democrats” underwent fMRI brain scans while being asked to assess statements by George W. Bush and John F. Kerry in which the candidates appeared to contradict themselves. In all cases the subjects were critical of the candidate they opposed, and spun explanations excusing the candidate they supported. … What was surprising, however, was what the fMRI scans revealed: parts of the brain associated with processing emotions, resolving conflict, and making moral judgments were activated, but the part of the brain associated with reasoning was not. When the subjects finally arrived at a conclusion that satisfied them, the part of the brain associated with reward and pleasure was activated.

Because of this and other studies, it is now generally accepted that confirmation bias exists, that it is caused by unconscious processing in the brain, and that it causes us to favor data confirming our beliefs/theories and to ignore or discount data challenging them.

Awareness of confirmation bias is hardly new, as demonstrated by the Francis Bacon quote accompanying Shermer’s column:

“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion ... draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises ... in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.” --Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1620

What has changed, however, is that when Bacon and others observed the phenomenon it could not be “proven”: it was not science … it was only an interesting opinion. Now, with the advent of fMRI and other tools, it is possible to test theories about unconscious processing in the brain, although admittedly still crudely.

One of the theories “roughly supported” by the fMRI data is that the brain processes ideas similarly to the way it is known to process vision: that is, discrete features of the raw input are separated and processed in parallel by numerous brain modules, and the output from the modules is “somehow” merged to produce the colorful, continuous, 3-D vision we experience. Whenever the brain is unable to successfully merge all of the output, however, it “makes up” a possible or probable solution and presents it to us as reality – the standard, repeatable “optical illusions” we’re all familiar with.

Knowing that the brain processes visual data in this way – and observing the distributed processing disclosed by fMRI – makes it reasonable to hypothesize that the brain processes ideas by weighing them against existing beliefs and biasing our judgment of the ideas accordingly. … Interestingly, this would also explain the time delays that Jung observed during the word-association tests that led to his theory of complexes; the data could be reinterpreted to describe, not complexes, but complex, time-consuming parallel processing going on to resolve the competing, sometimes conflicting ideas evoked by the words. (Although various word-association tests have already been conducted during fMRI, I am not aware of any aimed at exploring Jung’s studies.)

An awareness that unconscious bias exists in all of us, scientists as well, helps to explain the not infrequent battles that arise whenever new data begins to conflict with accepted theory. It is normal, and unfortunately natural, for proponents of an existing theory or viewpoint to fiercely reject without real examination any data that might challenge the status quo. Hopefully, the growing awareness that we are all “wired” to do this will cause us to consciously resist our impulse.

On the Existence of Good and Evil

Is Man basically “Good” or basically “Evil”?

Once we become aware of Man’s tribal nature, this classical question can be answered easily: “We are both. … We are by nature good to those within our tribe, and evil to those without.”

Historically we have viewed only members of our own tribe as “human” and have viewed all others as something less: early tribes usually identified themselves as “the People,” and other tribes as “non-People.” As non-People, outsiders could be treated cruelly without qualm, conscience, or even awareness. As William Blake wrote in “A Poison Tree”:

I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow

This dichotomy in the way we treat tribe members (friends) and outsiders (foes) led to the heretofore endless debate over our nature: those observing the love and sacrifice for one another within a tribe concluded we were by nature good and that evil is an aberration, while those observing our historical compulsion to war with one another concluded we were by nature evil and that good is achievable only through effort.

Once we accept the reality of our tribal nature, however, it becomes obvious that we are both good and evil – good to those who are like us, and evil to those who aren’t: our instinct is to love our friends and to harm our foes. Throughout our history we have seen repeatedly – sickeningly – that whenever we cease to view others as fellow humans, as belonging to any of our tribes, we can kill them as unconcernedly as we clear land of trees and boulders. Hitler’s henchmen, Jim Crow lynchers, and Al Qaida terrorists have felt not the slightest qualm about their murders, nor might we, once we relegated our victims to “non-People” status.

Does this mean that all tribes, all nations, all religions then are equally “valid,” and that none are “better” than others? … Hardly. Tribes are based upon sets of tribal tenets, tribal beliefs that govern their behavior, and not only can “Good” and “Evil” be discerned in human affairs, it can be measured. Good arises from our instinct to support and care for tribemates, and Evil arises from our instinct to dominate and destroy others. Whether tribes are “Good” or “Evil” is measurable by how they treat minorities within, and to what degree they tolerate and cooperate with rivals without. Tribes and nations that repress and brutalize their minorities and aggressively seek world domination are simply … Evil. The only sense in which national, ethnic, and religious tribes are “equal” is that they all have the same potential for both Good and Evil; what they actually are is determined by their operative beliefs, and is measured by their actions.

Youth, Gangs, and Tribalism

How can a culture prevent its youth from becoming alienated and forming anti-social gangs? Does the Tribal Programming Theory of Human Behavior provide any insight?

The theory suggests that, as tribal territorial animals, human beings cannot function without a supporting tribe, and will compulsively seek one that allows them to be a participating member: that is, to not merely be in the tribe, but to be a functioning part of it. Without the feeling of being a needed or at least appreciated tribe member, we will consciously or unconsciously begin searching for another tribe where we do fit in.

Throughout the millennia of our evolution, youth typically were needed and appreciated members of their tribes, and were counted upon to perform roles necessary to the tribe’s survival: they were groomed to take over the adult roles, and knew they would eventually become the tribe’s leaders and elders.

Once we evolved to having large urban societies, excess goods, and time not dedicated entirely to survival, it became possible for a tribe’s youth to become less needed and less appreciated as essential members. That is likely when the ongoing phenomenon of semi-autonomous youthful subtribes living by their own (inevitably primitive) codes of conduct arose.

Now, in our twenty-first century sophistication, we’re being forever startled by each new manifestation of violent street gangs – sometimes female – and of privileged upper-middleclass kids discovering some new way to exhibit bestiality. The Tribal Theory reminds us: we are riders on wild beasts that can run wild if not controlled by tribal rules, tribal beliefs. The Lord of the Flies is fiction … but true.

If you wonder about the lesser but still puzzling behavior of youth-not-quite-gangs, with their bizarre dress and strange decorations, that too is explained by the Tribal Theory. Tribe members compulsively adopt the distinctive markings of their tribe, and when our children begin dressing differently than we like – and become unreachable through reason – it is telling us that we are no longer their primary tribe, and that they henceforth will be adopting the beliefs and behavior of their new tribe. … For breakaway tribes, flaunting new tribal customs and costumes is de rigueur.

Given our new awareness of how influential tribal instincts are upon Man’s behavior, we should now work at conceiving ways to work with our instincts to achieve goals, rather than against them. That means that to overcome the violent and depraved behavior of youth gangs and subcultures, ways must be found to integrate them usefully and importantly into the web of our culture, and conditions that allow them to “exist” as standalone tribes must somehow be overcome. (And, yes, the advent of the Internet, cell phones, iPods, et al. make this incredibly difficult.) Nonetheless, this is our reality, and the first step is to recognize and acknowledge the source of the problem – our tribal nature.

(Human) Hardwired, Firmwired, and Softwired Programming

(Adapted from Man by Nature: the Hidden Programming Controlling Human Behavior)

Humans, like all other animals, are programmed to behave in characteristic ways. It is useful to describe the programming in terms analogous to computer programming as being “hardwired,” “firmwired,” or “softwired” depending upon how difficult it is to alter the programming once it has been “written.” Hardwired programming cannot be altered, ever; firmwired programming can be altered only with difficulty; and softwired programming (programs the computer simply “runs”) can be altered easily.

In humans, the species programming causing us to be homo sapiens is hardwired and has remained essentially unchanged throughout our existence; the programming we develop to walk, talk, and cope within our environment is firmwired and can be changed only with intense effort, often requiring physical or psychological therapy; the programming we develop consciously through learning is softwired and easily and regularly changed. A significant exception to this is when a softwired idea becomes promoted to a belief: it then becomes firmwired and is difficult to change.

Using this analogy to categorize our human programming:

Hardwired Human Programming (Unchangeable)

· automatic life-sustaining processes

· species behavior

· scheduled development processes

· instinctive fears

· instinctive behavior manifested as taboos

· Jung’s archetypal templates

· gene-based natures, talents, proclivities, susceptibilities, etc.

Firmwired Human Programming (Changeable Only With Effort)

· behavior learned through scheduled development processes

· surviving and coping behavior learned in childhood

· surviving and coping behavior learned with accompanying trauma

· subconscious memory

· beliefs

· addictive behavior

· ingrained habits

Softwired Human Programming (Changeable)

· superficial habits

· knowledge gained through observation and experience

· knowledge gained through being taught

· knowledge deduced or extrapolated from existing knowledge

Although the analogy of three levels of human programming corresponding with three levels of computer programming is helpful in understanding and discussing the permanency of our programming, it should not be extended to envision the brain’s programming as implemented in any way similar to a computer’s: the only comparison is that … well, they’re both programmed.

Computer designers salivate in envy over the capabilities of the brain. While there are specific kinds of computations that computers can perform faster and better than the human brain, as a general-purpose problem solver the human brain is light-years beyond computers. That’s why teams of neuroscientists and computer scientists are working overtime trying to discover and emulate how the brain works its wonders.

I hope you noticed, while reviewing the three levels of human programming above, that when we got to softwired programming – that over which we exert control – the list dwindled rapidly into forms of “knowledge.” That knowledge, however, includes everything we proudly see as defining humanity: our literature, art, and architecture, our music, math, and medicines, our sciences, philosophies, and religions … all arising somehow from a mere two-or-so percent of DNA that differentiates us from chimpanzees. We nervously ask: Are our vaunted intellectual achievements merely superficial, softwired distractions that entertain us while our hardwired traits and firmwired beliefs drive us to continual warfare? Are the wondrous abilities and accomplishments that make us forget we’re animals just things we fiddle with while burning Rome … or Dresden … or Hiroshima?

Alas! Mankind, the eternal contradiction, stands with branches straining skyward and roots mired in mud; our lifetimes and generations are spent trying vainly to reconcile lofty ideas with base actions; we are like riders on a wild beast over which we have but marginal control, forever attempting to explain and justify the beast’s behavior. Only when we finally come to understand the hidden programming controlling our behavior will there be any hope for change.

Why We Are Not Robots

(Based upon Man by Nature: the Hidden Programming Controlling Human Behavior)

If we are programmed to be tribal territorial animals, doesn’t it follow that our behavior is preordained, practically predestined, and therefore can not and should not be condemned?

No, it doesn’t.

Simple observation and plain common sense should make that obvious: the “sex drive,” the keenest and most appreciated of all our animal instincts, is never allowed to run rampant in even the most hedonistic of societies. While some may wring their hands and maintain it is running rampant, the facts refute the charge: men simply cannot go out and rape girls, boys, women, or men with impunity, at whim, anywhere in the world that has even the most primitive social structure. Only when there is total chaos and anarchy does that occur: otherwise there are always restraints.

It appears we’re designed that way.

It appears we are designed to be able to consciously moderate and override most of our animal instincts: thus we can choose to be ascetic sexual celibates, flagrant sexual hedonists, or almost anything in between. We are capable of – and expected to – override our hardwired programming with softwired ideas that become promoted to firmwired beliefs.

Accepting that we are tribal territorial animals often motivated by instincts does not in any way diminish us: we are still the same mixture of good and evil – good within our tribes and evil without – that we have always been, and the only (only!) thing the new knowledge brings us is the opportunity to address our chronic problems more realistically … and more wisely.