The age-old question of whether humans are innately good or bad has long captivated the minds of philosophers and scholars. Many prominent thinkers throughout history have argued that people are inherently selfish. Classical economists have built their theories on the assumption that individuals relentlessly pursue their self-interest. Machiavelli depicted human nature as deceitful and covetous. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins asserted that we are born selfish. These outlooks suggest a rather grim view of humanity, with only 30% of Americans claiming they can trust those around them.
However, what if this pessimistic view of human nature is not entirely accurate? A recent experiment conducted by psychologists Ryan J. Dwyer, William J. Brady, Elizabeth W. Dunn, and TED curator Chris Anderson challenges this notion. 200 individuals from seven nations were each given $10,000 and asked to report their spending. Surprisingly, participants allocated an average of over $6,400 to benefit others, including substantial donations to charity. Of the money spent, a significant portion went to people outside their immediate circle, as well as on strangers and organizations supporting marginalized groups. The experiment suggests a notable level of generosity among individuals.
What’s more, skeptics might argue that the participants only spent their money altruistically to gain status and applause from others. However, little difference was observed between those who publicized their spending on Twitter and those who kept it private. This suggests that people genuinely find it rewarding to spend money on others.
This study is not an anomaly. Over the past few decades, numerous social science experiments have provided individuals with opportunities to behave either selfishly or cooperatively. Yochai Benkler of Harvard, in his book “The Penguin and the Leviathan: The Triumph of Cooperation Over Self-Interest,” distilled the results of these experiments. He found that approximately 30% of people do exhibit selfish behavior in these situations, but an astonishing 50% consistently demonstrate cooperative behavior.
This extensive body of research leads to a critical conclusion: the majority of people in controlled experiments do not consistently act selfishly. Despite our history, humanity has thrived because of our remarkable ability to cooperate and work together. Cooperation, rather than ruthless self-interest, has been the driving force behind our success.
But what if you, as a kind-hearted individual, find yourself competing with ruthless and selfish individuals? Are you forced to adopt their dog-eat-dog mentality? Not necessarily. Organizational psychologist Adam Grant, in his book “Give and Take,” explored the dynamics of givers and takers within organizations. Grant discovered that while many low-performing workers were givers who allowed themselves to be taken advantage of, givers dominated the ranks of top performers. These high-performing givers had stellar reputations, extensive social networks, and strong relationships because people wanted to collaborate with them. Being a giver who knows how to assert oneself when necessary is a winning strategy.
It seems that many of our esteemed thinkers have underestimated the influence of moral and social motivations woven into human nature. We demonstrate acts of kindness, such as tipping waitstaff at restaurants we may never visit again, and rallying together to help during natural disasters. We not only crave admiration but also strive to be deserving of it.
Perhaps our public intellectuals have unintentionally perpetuated a self-fulfilling prophecy by reinforcing the belief that humans are inherently selfish and surrounded by selfish individuals. Over time, this notion has encouraged us to magnify the selfish aspects of our nature.
Additionally, Western societies have drawn a stark distinction between gifts and transactions. The sociologist Marcel Mauss argued in his essay “The Gift” that many cultures do not make such clear-cut separations. In these cultures, individuals view themselves as part of a network that encompasses material, social, and spiritual care. They lend a helping hand, lend an ear, and engage in reciprocal relationships that extend beyond simple transactions. These exchanges are seen as ongoing and supportive.
Lastly, Western societies have placed excessive emphasis on motivating individuals through economic self-interest. This focus has led to the creation of inhumane systems that override social and moral incentives. Along the way, we have made ourselves miserable.
In conclusion, the question of whether humans are fundamentally good or bad is complex. While history and certain theories may lean toward a selfish interpretation, recent experiments and social science research suggest that the majority of people incline towards cooperation and altruism. Our shared desire for collaboration and our innate moral and social motivations have played a significant role in our species’ success and continued development. It’s time to recognize and harness these qualities rather than perpetuate a narrow view of human nature that diminishes our collective potential.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
