So, why was the discussion of "original sin" important? Because Pygmalion and Golem effects are significant, and how we view other people makes a real difference on how they behave and perform. We're full of mirror neurons that can serve us well or ill, depending on how they communicate to and from those around us.
Experiments tell us that it is important to not have any notions
of biases, especially for children. For children, and even for rats, across repeated experiments, those presumed to be smarter actually do better on tests, simply because
of more positive attention. This is the Pymalion Effect, which is a self-reinforcing tendency for those who are proclaimed to be "better" actually end up ahead. Similarly, those presumed to be dumb do
worse. This is probably one of several reasons that when "science" said
Black people were less smart, they did much worse in school, which is the Golem Effect. We have
instituted some oddly self-destructive feedback loops into the structure of our society.
And where do these sensitive neurons come from? Surely they are in-built, but why? Why is that we automatically categorize individuals and with very little prodding will favor "those like us", and behave to match? Why do we value fairness and kindness, yet we readily subjugate these notions for our "tribe" of whatever sort?
Revisiting an earlier timeline, about 600K year ago we split from Neanderthal and Denosivan cousins, which then died out maybe 40K years ago. Probably, like dogs and chimps and bonobos, these branches of the family tree had some mirror neurons working similarly too.
Which brings up an interesting point, why is it that some animals, like domesticated dogs and foxes, are friendly and playful, while most adult animals are not? Why do human children play for a decade or more with whimsy and imagination, and only slowly settle into a less playful adult grind?
One well-supported supposition is the humanity has domesticated itself. Domestication across species has quite a few conserved features, and some are already pinned to genetic variations. A quick sample includes:
Physical changes - thinner skull, fainter brow-ridge, bigger ears, smaller teeth/smaller jaw,more frequent and nonseasonal estrus cycles, alterations in
adrenocorticotropic hormone levels, changed concentrations of several
neurotransmitters, and reductions in
both total brain size and of particular brain regions, sometimes depigmentation
Behavioral - Communicative, less aggressive, docility, prolongations in juvenile behavior, play
Other
features appear to be conjoined with our "self domestication". It's
odd that across species, the same patterns often appear with
domestication, and smaller brains, docility, and higher intelligence
come along with smaller teeth, softer features, and (where applicable) a
curly tail. Silver foxes were domesticated by a Russian team for
decades during the Cold War as an experiment, not much connected to
other research, and yet selecting only for gentle pro-social behavior
(wild Silver Foxes are really mean) brought out all the same traits,
resulting in domestication in about 40 generations.
Interestingly, though brain-size get smaller, overall intelligence increases, especially with regards to communications, learning, and working together. Perhaps it's the extended childlike/adolescent periods where brains are growing and learning, and internally growing/pruning connections (and in this, human are unique), and with a natural tendency to investigate concepts through play, and to follow the lead of role models, and then finally to quickly grow with a (again human unique) adolescent growth spurt as we move into adulthood.
When did all of this happen for humans? Well, we've been painting caves for 35K years, and evolutionary anthropologists say we've been able to talk longer than that. Somewhere along, sexual selection apparently provided evolutionary pressure favoring mates whose features and behaviorswere less "alpha,"
or aggressive. "There was active selection, for the very first time,
against the bullies and the genes that favored their aggression".
Low-status people tend toward empathy and communication, and are perhaps more bonobo-like. High-status tend toward sociopathy (power does corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely), with lower empathy, less shame, and greed with conspicuous consumption. Note that it is not necessarily the case that sociopaths get into leadership roles - actually, empathetic congeniality tends to find more initial success - but that once in a role of power they acquire sociopathy, and in modern society strong incentives to justify and maintain advantage.
This is a profound point: our roles to a degree determine our attitude and even our feelings, modifying the operation of our mental pathways. How people treat us, and how we think about ourselves, significantly changes who we are, and what we are capable of. On top of that, we generate favorable treatment for our "tribe", where membership can be based on literally anything, and we do this from childhood on. Our brains, group interactions, and society overall are impacted, even governed, by the interplay of these often mutually-reinforcing patterns.
How did we get to this point where we have powerful, privileged, sociopathically-leaning rulers, from a group of fairly egalitarian hunter-gatherers? Clearly, it came along with farming and cities, and the need to coordinate larger numbers of people. We know there is balance of human desires, and maintaining a leadership role with relative inequity requires avoiding the strong desire for fairness, and so leaders have to justify why they are better and more deserving. Historically, this is done with religion (ordained by god), intellect (smarter than you), power (stronger than you), and charisma (nicer, more generous, etc.). Perhaps this justification is part of the rationalization engine each of us runs to generate support for our emotionally-underpinned decisions? Maybe it's a driver, and maybe it's an emergent behavior, but probably now powerfully linked?
No comments:
Post a Comment