Q: Are people basically good or bad?

A: Yes!

EITHER/OR

When I was training to be a clinical psychologist back in the 1970's, there was a hot debate between the psychoanalysts who believed that people behaved according to the internal dynamics of their self/personality and the behaviorists who believed people behaved according to external environmental conditions.

One of the hallmarks of an immature (pre-scientific) field of study is that its members tend to get locked in highly polarized EITHER/OR debates that never get “resolved”. These arguments just fade out over time and are replaced by the next professional hot mess (e.g. drugs vs. therapy).

In the debate over Personality vs. Environment as the driving force for human behavior, the answer is of course that people are driven by both inner AND outer forces. This is referred to as the interactionist paradigm:

“An interactionist or biocognitive view denies the primacy of either traits or situations in the determination of behavior…. More specifically, interactionism argues that situations are as much a function of the person as the person’s behavior is a function of the situation” (K.S. Bowers, 1973)

Mature fields of study are characterized by more complex and multi-variate paradigms that view their subject of study from a systems perspective. In place of a linear single-cause model [X ➡️ Y], a systems paradigm assumes that most phenomena (biology, behavior, weather, economics, politics etc.) are the product of multiple interacting factors (1 AND 2 AND 3 AND …) that all effect each other through complex and dynamic feed-back/forward loops.

So when someone says “It’s ALL about X”, hold onto your wallet; they’re trying to sell you X (a product or idea). When someone uses the magic word AND when explaining something, listen carefully. They might have something useful to say (though harder to grasp).

Angels AND Devils

Each person inherits a menu of genetic instructions from their parents (and their grandparents and …). Since our survival odds can be increased by both strong self-interest AND concern for others, most of us inherit some predisposition toward both. The relative genetic weighting of these two dispositions will vary from person to person and influence their character.

Some people inherit a dominant genetic dose of self-interest or narcissism. In their relationships, it’s all about ME: what I think, what I want, what I feel. Other people are treated largely as objects for the satisfaction of their wants. The extreme form of this orientation is the psychopath who has no empathy or concern for others and just takes what they want through force or ruthless manipulation. This is what most people consider a BAD person (the Devil archetype) devoid of the higher moral values of generosity and compassion. These people act consistently across most situations and are drawn to positions where they can exert and expand their power over others. They cause great harm.

At the other end of the continuum is the person whose genetic loading is tipped heavily toward the helping-giving-caring end of the continuum (the Saint archetype). These GOOD people will act in most situations with empathy and compassion and generosity, focusing on satisfying the wants/needs of the other person. They will occupy many of the helping professions where their default orientation is desired and rewarded. They do much good.

The most adaptive behavioral style is a blend of self-interest AND concern for others AND the ability to shift approach to fit a given situation. In the research on so-called iterated game theory, people play a series of games and their different strategies are analyzed for results. The best overall success strategy turns out to be

• Begin every new game with a cooperative (win/win) approach

• If your opponent responds cooperatively, continue with that approach

• If they respond with a competitive (win/lose) approach, switch to competition

So a flexible ability to either cooperate or compete depending on the specific environment is more adaptive and successful than rigidly using either approach all the time. That’s what most of us do.

Rx: GOOD “CULTURE”

So how can we nudge human nature in the direction of more cooperation and less warfare so we have more peace and prosperity on earth?

One of the major drivers of behavior is what we call CULTURE. Culture is one of those vague squishy words that are hard to pin down and therefore create confusion and uncertainty. I like to think of culture as human software that is designed to answer three incredibly important existential questions:

• What is real?

• What is good?

• How do things work?

Human groups (families, communities, organizations, countries) benefit greatly from having clear and credible answers to these critical questions that generate consensus and broad buy-in. Groups that lack unifying cultural software are prone to high levels of conflict and chaos (read: culture wars).

How groups define the good and how things work is directly relevant to whether we end up with more Angels or Devils in our midst. If your culture defines good as winning and how things work as winner takes all, you will get a lot of dominance and fighting. If your culture defines good as caring about others and how things work as cooperating/negotiating so everybody wins, you will get more of that. Culture has to be more than just words written or spoken or preached. People who align with cultural norms and values should be rewarded, and those who violate them need to pay a price. Consequences matter.

So as with most things about human behavior, whether people are good or bad is the product of both their inherited nature AND the environment in which they operate. Given that most of us are capable of both self-interest and caring about others, we should pay very close attention to the cultural values and norms and practices we promote and enforce. That will largely determine whether we benefit from the better angels of our nature or suffer from the opposite.

---