Adversarial Theories of Human Nature

Other posts have mentioned the power of mental models in determining our behavior, which in turn contributes to creating the ‘world around us’. The surprising conclusion is that ‘the world’ is not something that is imposed on us from the outside, over which we have no control. Rather, we (as individuals and communities) have created and are continually re-creating that world in the image and likeness of our mental models! 

The mental models that most need questioning today include those supporting the notion of human beings as aggressive and selfish by nature, which has been widely refuted by scientific developments over the past decades. These are complemented by mental models of society that accept egotism and competition as the norm and ignore the many evidences showing that the advancement of civilization throughout history has been based on cooperation.

These archaic mental models regarding the nature of man and society have given rise to attitudes and behaviors that are no longer useful in today’s interdependent world community. The blogs under the label "Human Nature" will explore some of the contents of these mental models, the pseudo-scientific notions on which they are based, and the scientific evidence that shows them to be false. However, first let us reflect some more on the power of mental models, in order to underscore how important it is to question them deeply and work to transform them.

Douglas McGregor found that managers’ assumptions (mental models) about human nature influence their approach to human resource management in the workplace.¹ He maintains that all managers have such assumptions, even if they are not aware of them. He identifies two groups of assumptions, which he calls Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X, the conventional managerial approach, states that “workers need to be motivated and controlled through direct pressure from management because they are lazy, lack ambition, dislike responsibility, prefer to be told what to do, and passively resist achieving the goals of the organization. Money is the only way to motivate them.”

Theory Y advocates another set of managerial assumptions regarding workers. It proposes that “when given a chance, people are self-motivated to meet the organization’s goals while working towards personal growth and development.” Theory Y further sustains that if people appear to behave according to the characteristics posed by Theory X, it is only because the organization in which they work requires them to do so. According to this viewpoint, a manager’s task is to arrange matters in such a way that people can fulfill their hierarchically superior needs for self-realization and achievement in the process of meeting the goals of the organization.

McGregor’s point that we want to highlight here is that our assumptions about human nature greatly affect the way we see and treat others. Furthermore, these suppositions tend to be self-fulfilling prophesies. In the case of workers, they respond to their managers’ assumptions by exhibiting the characteristics that are expected of them.

That is why 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. Instead, we can: 1) reflect on the consequences of each model and its positive or negative impacts on society. This will help us understand how certain mental models of human nature have been generating the culture around us; and 2) examine scientific evidence to determine to what extent the model coincides with reality. Then we can consciously change our faulty mental models and replace them with a new conceptual framework that will produce the kind of society we want. As Elisabeth Sahtouris has said:

Many of us believe that today's human problems will never be solved, that they have simply gotten too big for solutions of any kind or that, even if we solved them temporarily, human nature cannot itself change and therefore we would just get into the same mess again. This pessimistic view of ourselves as a species reflects the way we feel as individuals whenever we are depressed and our problems seem insoluble.

Hopeless pessimism often comes from lack of perspective. If we look at things narrowly--from within a difficult situation-- they may well seem hopeless, but if we manage to step out of our dark hole, so to speak, to gain some perspective on ourselves within it, we may begin to see a way out. What could be more interesting, more exciting, than to be alive in the very age when we as a species have the opportunity to mature, to solve the adolescent problems we have caused ourselves and others?²

The next few posts in this blog contain a critical analysis of some of the mental models about human nature that have influenced our way of thinking and acting and have created the society in which we live. For further information on this topic by the same author, please click here.

Notes:

1.      Douglas McGregor, quoted by Fred Luthans in Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw Hill, 1977, p. 20.

2.      Elisabet Sahtouris, Gaia: The Human Journey From Chaos to Cosmos. New York: Pocket Books, 1989, pp. 207-208.