Human Behavior vs. Human Nature

A student of our Peace Education Program recently asked a question about a statement in the study text, which says, "...there is no point in recurring to actual behaviors to ‘prove’ the validity of a mental model about human nature, because each model tends to engender the very outcomes that would seem to validate it," but then goes on to say we must "examine scientific evidence to
determine to what extent the model coincides with reality." She very rightly questioned the connection between the first statement and the second, because "without measuring actual behavior, how we can have data?"

This statement refers to the fact that our ideas about people's nature tends to encourage them to behave in certain ways. Think of the education of children. If we treat them as if they were good and intelligent, they become better and smarter. If we treat them as if they were bad and dumb, they become worse. Our ideas about the children we teach become self-fulfilling prophesies, because of a teacher's powerful influence on their students' mental models about themselves.

The same applies to leadership. If we assume people are rebellious, we will use an authoritative style of leadership to force them to comply, and they will become more rebellious, but if we assume people are basically eager to collaborate, we will use a style of collective leadership, and they will become more collaborative. If we think people are ignorant or incapable, we will use a know-it-all or paternalistic style of leadership to compensate for their inability, and this will make them less capable, but if we recognize their high potential, we will use an empowering style of leadership, and they will develop their potential. If we assume that people act only in self-interest, we will use a manipulative style of leadership, and they will tend to act more in self-interest, but if we think of people as interested in collective well-being, we will use a principle-centered style of leadership, and their prosocial attitudes and behavior will be strengthened. Our mental models of human nature lead us to behave towards people accordingly, which influences their mental models about themselves and leads them to behave accordingly.

So this also applies to our own mental models about ourselves. What we assume about our own innate nature, abilities and potential tends to manifest itself in our behavior, which confirms and strengthens our initial beliefs about ourselves, in a self-perpetuating feedback loop that grows stronger with time. If we believe we, as human beings, are inherently violent by nature, we will act with violence, and our actions will reconfirm our initial assumption. Therefore, the prevalence of violence in a society proves nothing about human nature, but everything about that society's mental models about human nature as essentially violent.

Science has two basic components: (1) observation and (2) interpretation of what is observed. People often confuse the interpretation of facts with the facts themselves. For example, if we observe violence and interpret it as meaning people are violent by nature, that may sound scientific, but is actually an unwarranted "essentialization" of their behavior, which is traditionally very common in the social sciences.

Another common error, especially in the social sciences, is "generalization," which means observing a sample of cases and applying our interpretation of them to the universe of cases. For example, if we observe some of the most notorious cases of self-interested behavior in a society and interpret it as meaning that people are inherently self-interested, we would then be satisfied to generalize that interpretation to all people, ignoring or "invisibilizing" the fact that the silent majority of people lead lives of quiet abnegation and service to others.

However, even if all or most of the people in a society act in the same way, this does not "prove" that an "essentializing" interpretation of that behavior is valid, but rather demonstrates the tremendous power of shared mental models to influence people's behavior. I realize that this approach may challenge many of the assumptions of behaviorist psychology, which arose in part as an attempt to validate psychology as a science by fashioning it more closely to the natural sciences. However, we must acknowledge that the research methods of the natural sciences are not easily applicable to the social and human sciences, because they do not take into account the human ability to create and recreate oneself and one's society in the image of mental models, worldviews, beliefs, assumptions, etc.

Even quantum physics has demonstrated that what we think about what we are observing actually changes the subject of observation. For example, if we look for a wave, we find a wave, but if we look for a particle, we find a particle.

This discovery is also being applied to the social sciences, as we explore and discover the power of discourse and belief to influence people's behavior. That is why we recommend taking following steps: 1) reflect on the positive or negative impacts of each mental model about human nature on society, to understand how it actually generates the culture around us; and 2) examine other scientific evidence (i.e., aside from simple observation of specific behaviors) to determine to what extent each mental model coincides with reality, in order to change faulty mental models consciously and replace them with new conceptual frameworks that will produce the kind of culture and society we want.

These other scientific evidences include, for example: the observation that win-lose relationships are destructive and maladaptive, while win-win relationships are constructive and more adaptive for both individual and collective survival; the fact that early assumptions that human behavior was genetically determined has absolutely no theoretical or empirical grounding; the research that shows that our brains are not programmed for violence and selfishness, but rather that our neurological structures favor empathy and self-control; and many others that are mentioned in www.cultureofpeaceprogram.org, under Resources-Essays.