STI
11th October 2006, 11:16
When we see a person who looks like crap, who's late for a meeting, or who loses his temper in public, how often do we construct possible "reasonable explainations" for why that person is in that particular situation? Do we often consider what external factors might have attributed to or even caused a given condition? When it happens to be ourselves in such a situation, we certainly do - almost always, actually. We look like crap because our laundry got lost (no, it was probably stolen... you can't lose a whole bag of laundry in a two-bedroom apartment for three full weeks), we're late because there was a long lineup at the coffee shoppe and we caught every red light on the way to the meeting, we're pissed off because we're quitting smoking and our friends are riding our asses over stupid shit. It's circumstantial, not an intrinsic part of who we are. It's caused by external factors.
That's no problem, it's one of the ways we defend our own self-esteem, allowing us to continue as healthy, functional individuals.
But what about when it comes to other people? It's not always, not usually, and almost never the case. We make quick "judgements" about Joe Somebody based on what we see for that brief moment - Joe's unshaven with a coffee-stained shirt because he's dirty or doesn't care about the way he looks. Mary is late because she doesn't care or isn't 'together' enough to get places on time. Paul is flipping his lid because he's just a dick. Violencia.Proletariat screwed up the quote tags because he's a dufus (!) - we attribute each specific situational occurence to who that person fundamentally is (The "Fundamental Attribution Error")
These "first impressions" are so important because of the way we organize information - into schemas based on what little information we have. This is functional: it doesn't take much time or mental effort, and is usually more effective than just "going in blind" - if for no other reason than because it gives an indication of what's going on with that person *this very second* (ie: is s/he friendly and approachable? does s/he pose a threat?). More than that, it's usually not urgent, as you'll likely not see Joe or Mary or Paul for some time.
Oh, and this form of automatic social thinking can be consciously overridden.
So, we'll find explainations for our own "fuckups", but attribute the fuckups of others to "who they are". . Like I said before, this is a normal part of automatic social cognition and is usually harmless because there's usually no intrinsic urgency or importance to the conclusions we draw. [i]Usually
The harm comes in when the conclusions we draw have a deep impact on the way we look at the world...
Take "Human Nature", for example. It's certainly easy to draw the conclusion, given the violent, savage, greedy history of the human species (most of whom are "not me", remember), that humans must be fundamentally greedy, ignorant fucks.
But when we consider the external factors that would have influenced that behavior, a much different picture emerges.
The most important factor is scarcity. When you can't live comfortably, desperation is bound to set it. You'll probably find yourself more "able" to, say, club that other pre-historic human to get his food - you'll starve if you don't!
Another is ignorance of the facts. It's a fact that, genetically speaking, there is more of a difference within races than between them. That wasn't known 50 years ago, much less 300. So, when a white southerner saw the same group of illiterate black slaves every day, he didn't think to attribute it to some other factor - "it must just be the way black people are." Again we see the untempered effects of the fundamental attribution error. The white southerner simply didn't know that there wasn't actually a biological difference between "his race" and the "black race", so he had nothing to give rise to an override of his automatic thinking. It's not that "black nature" is to be illiterate and servile or that "human nature" is to be xenophobic and hostile - there are other factors involved.
There could be any number of factors contributing to the (dare I say) appauling manner in which our species has acted in the past, but rather than go through each conceivable one in detail, I'll just mention one more: conditioning. That racist white southerner will almost invariably pass those same attitudes and values on to his children, who, taking their father's word, will be influenced in the same direction. It should be noted that this has faded, generally, from one generation to the next since the dawn of capitalism with increased literacy, access to actual information, and "liberation" of the young (how common is it for a person to live near their parents at 25 compared to what it was 200 years ago? Much, much less).
So, then, if these factors that contribute to human barbarism are removed, what will we be left with? If scarcity is (effectively) eradicated (increasingly possible as productive technologies are developed further), scientific knowledge is more widespread (as is necessary for the functioning of any technologically-advanced society... even a capitalist one), and parents are no longer passing shitty values down to their kids (on its way out), plus all the other things I didn't mention, how will people act?
Good question. I think they'll pursue higher motivations - fulfillment, acceptance, self-actualization. Sociopaths notwithstanding, pursuing these motivations involves neither unnecessary acts of violence nor the "screwing over" of anyone. So why would people try to?
Now, if a post-capitalist society can ensure that such "external factors" are non-issues, is "human nature" really an issue at all?
That's no problem, it's one of the ways we defend our own self-esteem, allowing us to continue as healthy, functional individuals.
But what about when it comes to other people? It's not always, not usually, and almost never the case. We make quick "judgements" about Joe Somebody based on what we see for that brief moment - Joe's unshaven with a coffee-stained shirt because he's dirty or doesn't care about the way he looks. Mary is late because she doesn't care or isn't 'together' enough to get places on time. Paul is flipping his lid because he's just a dick. Violencia.Proletariat screwed up the quote tags because he's a dufus (!) - we attribute each specific situational occurence to who that person fundamentally is (The "Fundamental Attribution Error")
These "first impressions" are so important because of the way we organize information - into schemas based on what little information we have. This is functional: it doesn't take much time or mental effort, and is usually more effective than just "going in blind" - if for no other reason than because it gives an indication of what's going on with that person *this very second* (ie: is s/he friendly and approachable? does s/he pose a threat?). More than that, it's usually not urgent, as you'll likely not see Joe or Mary or Paul for some time.
Oh, and this form of automatic social thinking can be consciously overridden.
So, we'll find explainations for our own "fuckups", but attribute the fuckups of others to "who they are". . Like I said before, this is a normal part of automatic social cognition and is usually harmless because there's usually no intrinsic urgency or importance to the conclusions we draw. [i]Usually
The harm comes in when the conclusions we draw have a deep impact on the way we look at the world...
Take "Human Nature", for example. It's certainly easy to draw the conclusion, given the violent, savage, greedy history of the human species (most of whom are "not me", remember), that humans must be fundamentally greedy, ignorant fucks.
But when we consider the external factors that would have influenced that behavior, a much different picture emerges.
The most important factor is scarcity. When you can't live comfortably, desperation is bound to set it. You'll probably find yourself more "able" to, say, club that other pre-historic human to get his food - you'll starve if you don't!
Another is ignorance of the facts. It's a fact that, genetically speaking, there is more of a difference within races than between them. That wasn't known 50 years ago, much less 300. So, when a white southerner saw the same group of illiterate black slaves every day, he didn't think to attribute it to some other factor - "it must just be the way black people are." Again we see the untempered effects of the fundamental attribution error. The white southerner simply didn't know that there wasn't actually a biological difference between "his race" and the "black race", so he had nothing to give rise to an override of his automatic thinking. It's not that "black nature" is to be illiterate and servile or that "human nature" is to be xenophobic and hostile - there are other factors involved.
There could be any number of factors contributing to the (dare I say) appauling manner in which our species has acted in the past, but rather than go through each conceivable one in detail, I'll just mention one more: conditioning. That racist white southerner will almost invariably pass those same attitudes and values on to his children, who, taking their father's word, will be influenced in the same direction. It should be noted that this has faded, generally, from one generation to the next since the dawn of capitalism with increased literacy, access to actual information, and "liberation" of the young (how common is it for a person to live near their parents at 25 compared to what it was 200 years ago? Much, much less).
So, then, if these factors that contribute to human barbarism are removed, what will we be left with? If scarcity is (effectively) eradicated (increasingly possible as productive technologies are developed further), scientific knowledge is more widespread (as is necessary for the functioning of any technologically-advanced society... even a capitalist one), and parents are no longer passing shitty values down to their kids (on its way out), plus all the other things I didn't mention, how will people act?
Good question. I think they'll pursue higher motivations - fulfillment, acceptance, self-actualization. Sociopaths notwithstanding, pursuing these motivations involves neither unnecessary acts of violence nor the "screwing over" of anyone. So why would people try to?
Now, if a post-capitalist society can ensure that such "external factors" are non-issues, is "human nature" really an issue at all?