Scientists Probe Human Nature--and Discover We are Good, after All

Helping comes easy. Image: iStock / Nadya Lukic

• 

  Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...

  Read More??

When it really comes down to it?when the chips are down and the lights are off?are we naturally good? That is, are we predisposed to act cooperatively, to help others even when it costs us? Or are we, in our hearts, selfish creatures?

This fundamental question about human nature has long provided fodder for discussion. Augustine?s doctrine of original sin proclaimed that all people were born broken and selfish, saved only through the power of divine intervention. Hobbes, too, argued that humans were savagely self-centered; however, he held that salvation came not through the divine, but through the social contract of civil law. On the other hand, philosophers such as Rousseau argued that people were born good, instinctively concerned with the welfare of others. More recently, these questions about human nature?selfishness and cooperation, defection and collaboration?have been brought to the public eye by game shows such as Survivor and the UK?s Golden Balls, which test the balance between selfishness and cooperation by pitting the strength of interpersonal bonds against the desire for large sums of money.

But even the most compelling televised collisions between selfishness and cooperation provide nothing but anecdotal evidence. And even the most eloquent philosophical arguments mean noting without empirical data.

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?

To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency?selfishness or cooperation?predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.

Source: http://rss.sciam.com/click.phdo?i=9cadd46da6058a705e23c20a4a89e43b

space shuttle new york courtney upshaw russell wilson catch me if you can delmon young arrested the raven the raven