A list of claims of what humans are, with ‘human nature’ overtones. It’s meant to be in fun, and the list isn’t complete.
- We are moral animals. (1)
- We are killer apes. (2)
- We are risen apes, not fallen angels. (3)
- We are aquatic apes. (4) No we’re not.
- Man the hunter. (5)
- Woman the gatherer. (6)
- Man the firemaker. (7)
- Homo, the endurance runner. (8)
- Homo, the high-velocity thrower. (9)
- We have an instinct for art. (10)
- We have an instinct for language. (11)
- We do not have an instinct for language. (12)
- We are Homo economicus. (13)
- Man the tool-maker. (14)
- Pan the tool-maker. (15) Not us, but it’s clever.
- We are social animals. (16)
- We are cooperative breeders. (17)
- We are hypersexual animals. (18)
- We are sexy beasts. (19)
- We are political animals. (20)
- We are rational animals. (21)
- We are irrational animals. (22)
- We are no longer just apes; we are biocultural ex-apes. (###)
- We are complex.
“Both sides are motivated by fear, by anger, and by wrong perception. But wrong perceptions cannot be removed by guns and bombs. They should be removed by deep listening, compassionate listening, and loving space.
…. We should be able to say this: “Dear friends, dear people, I know that you suffer. I have not understood enough of your difficulties and suffering. It is not our intention to make you suffer more. It is the opposite. We don’t want you to suffer. But we don’t know what to do and we might do the wrong thing if you don’t help us to understand. So please tell us about your difficulties. I’m eager to learn, to understand.”
— Thich Nhat Hahn, on empathy and averting conflict
That sounds very pollyannaish, doesn’t it? But imagine if it worked.
A few weeks ago, my infant daughter found a stash of old letters I’d written to my wife (longhand!) when we first started dating in college many years ago. With a big grin on her face, she pulled several of them out and scattered them all over the floor. As I began to clean up the mess, I pulled one out at random and started to read it. [Long story short: early romantic love is gross.]
The handwriting was instantly recognizable, but it had been so long since I wrote the letter that it almost seemed like I was reading someone else’s words. That would probably be true about anything I wrote that long ago, but given the tone of the letter, I assumed that it would all come back to me instantly. Some of it did, but with the passage of time, much has been forgotten. A quote from Joan Didion seems appropriate here: “I have already lost touch with a couple of people I used to be.” (But there is always room to become re-acquainted).
“Blood just looks the same/ when you open the veins.” – Karl Wallinger
From where I sit right now, it feels like a lot of social divisions are widening, many of which are intertwined: rich-poor, Black-White, Republican-Democrat, police-civilians, etc. I just want to step back a little bit to help me remember to maintain perspective. Below is a copy-and-paste from something I wrote before about my daughter (I don’t have much time to reinvent the wheel). The general sentiment is about trying to see commonality first.
I’ve liked this passage from Matt Ridley’s book “The Agile Gene” for a while:
I took this (blurry) photo inside the Lincoln Memorial, on a recent trip to Washington, D.C. The quote comes from Lincoln’s first inaugural address, and it struck me as particularly relevant today since it seems that bonds are strained in so many places. Hopefully, we can remember that those bonds are essential, even if they don’t always come easily. After all, we are cosmically connected primates.
Apropos of nothing. Just felt like sharing two related images.
Bonobos, by Tim Flach. (Source)
The Kiss, by Gwenn Seemel. (Source)
In one of my classes, we play a game known as the Prisoner’s Dilemma. It’s a fun exercise, where students earn ‘points’ by choosing either to cooperate with, or defect on, a partner. We do a few different versions of the game, sometimes with randomly assigned partners for a single round, sometimes with the same partner for multiple rounds, and with different point structures. We also use a deck of playing cards, where students choose a red card to signify defection or a black card for cooperation. All interactions are face-to-face, in real time, and as an incentive there is a prize for the two people who receive the most points.
The main rule of the game is that the number of points one earns depends not only on their own choices, but also the choice their partner makes. The game was originally named after the dilemma that two partners in crime face should they be caught. Here is Eric Johnson’s succinct explanation:
In the game, two people who committed a crime are arrested and each is placed in solitary confinement for interrogation. If one betrays the other, the first goes free while the second is sentenced to three years in prison. If they both betray one another, they each receive two years. But if they both keep silent, they receive the minimum penalty of one year each. Under this scenario, the best individual strategy would be to betray the other.
In our classroom exercise, we invert the scenario and give positive rewards for cooperating (points), since I’m not authorized to give out negative penalties for defecting like years in prison (not that I’d want to do that, anyway).
|You both cooperate w/each other
|You cooperate, but partner defects
|You defect, partner cooperates