The following musings were inspired by Suthenboy’s latest submission that discussed the folly of ignoring human nature. It got me thinking that “human nature” is something I recognize as a thing, but perhaps in a somewhat erroneous way, in that upon deeper consideration human nature isn’t really something that can be utilized in a monolithic sense. I’ve settled on human nature as being more like an average of individuals’ several natures. My attempts to detail these natures started to lead me down a path of relativism involving time and cultures… too complicated. Instead, I backtracked to more visceral aspects of what I believe to be our nature, some natural contradictions, and stuck to the broad strokes of the topic.
In starting out with an overarching definition, ideas like self-interest and the invisible hand come to mind as references, along with concepts such as, “the whole is something else than the sum of its parts.” Various thinkers have offered simplistic terms for human nature: divinity, good, animal, conjugal, social, etc. For me, I find it’s whatever comes naturally to each person, whatever reactions they can’t effectively control, many of which most humans hold in common. I’ll leave it at that and get on with it, but add that humans don’t always act in their own best interest – most of us can identify self-destructive people, otherwise we wouldn’t know what not to stick our (metaphoric, for the fairer readership) dicks in.
I deal with and utilize human nature as a profession: I run a manufacturing plant. My staff are the various department heads. In my managing, at times, I negotiate the plant as a whole; at others, each department’s unique personality – as may evolve from its leader and/or its typical employee, depending on necessary skill sets – and its interactions with the others; and sometimes, an individual.
In each case, I look for the subject’s motivation, and that helps me to fashion my, dare I say, manipulation of it to achieve the plant’s goals. If I assumed all of humans’ nature to be the same, there’d be no need to search for a motivation. Some work-related examples…
Some folks are naturally predominantly lazy, others are overtime commandos who’d live at the plant and do nothing but work and sleep if I let them. Most people fall in the middle, but I believe humans possess both desires – to work and to rest – and that the tradeoff is what’s in society’s self-interest: work hard to survive, yet carve out time to recuperate. Slavery is not a sound long-term economic model, nor is collectivism, for they both deny (these aspects of) human nature.
There are loners and social butterflies, which natures I consider when building teams and filling positions.
A minority seek to control others, with controlling as an end in itself; others can’t take a piss without being told. Neither extremes are desirable in managers or workers. For the average, we can look to the quote, “You cannot be a leader… unless you know how to follow, too.” Somewhat related, my dogs try to lead me everywhere I’m going even though they don’t know where that is.
Other thoughts on human nature…
Sexual desire is decoupled from the desire to have children, though the evolutionary result of sexual desire is species proliferation. Why don’t we simply desire procreation as opposed to wanting to shag or to fawn over pudgy little cherubs? As an aside, this is evidence to me for evolution and against creationism.
Peeps are generally attracted to younger looking potential mates, giving our species the evolutionary benefits of neoteny. However, this goes too far when it results in pederasty, hence OMWC. That perversion may be balanced out by the demonstrated preference by some of being attracted to much older looking people, despite the odds against its being beneficial to our race’s continuing.
Human nature sans societal influence is a not good thing. Children must be taught to share, not to steal; to speak civilly, not to be violent. These lessons are best practices taught to them by their families, by society. From a bigger picture perspective, maybe a baby’s complete greed is expected by evolution to be balanced by the restrictions placed upon it by its parents. For the survival of the species, a vulnerable human-as-baby must be wholly demanding, and as it becomes less vulnerable it must learn to conform to its local culture, to whatever the humans-as-elders have worked out is in their group’s best interest. Children left to their nature become brats and thugs.
Given such conflicting desires/traits, it’s tough to pinpoint a distinct human nature, unless we look at how they balance, so again, I find it better to look at the averages to guide me, similar to how biologists consider an ant colony as the organism, rather than just one ant of the crew as being representative of the species, since the biology of a given ant can so vary from its fellow colonists depending on its function. Ant nature cannot be determined by looking at the queen’s behavior alone, just as one nature cannot begin to describe one human, let alone a planet full of them.
That said, I am optimistic about humans’ collective direction. Slavery as a human institution is now, for the most part, a thing of the past. Causing civilian casualties in war is now a bug, not a feature. Imperialism through violent acquisition is likewise no longer acceptable on the human stage. I’m hopeful that one day, all forms of authoritarianism will be viewed with disdain. On average, at least.
By Plisade