“One way or another, we all have to find what best fosters the flowering of our humanity in this contemporary life, and dedicate ourselves to that.”
~ Joseph Campbell

Do you believe that humans are essentially good, kind, and cooperative, or inherently self-serving?

That question is addressed in a book I read this week called Humankind: A Hopeful History. The work, which is described by The Times (UK) as being “filled with compelling tales of human goodness,” offers a fresh perspective on humanity and invites readers to rethink many long-held beliefs.

It was recommended to me by one of my sisters, who taught college classes in Sociology and Anthropology. (One of the benefits of having so many siblings is that we broaden each other’s horizons, often through book suggestions we might not otherwise read since our interests are so different.)

In Humankind, Dutch historian, journalist, and author Rutger Bregman, billed as one of Europe’s most prominent young thinkers, debunks the negative view of mankind that many people hold. He begins by pointing to a number of oft-cited psychological experiments from the 1970s. Inherently curious and skeptical, Bregman decided to investigate the methodology used in both the design and implementation of the studies on human nature. During his deep dive he found that some of the high-profile research that supposedly demonstrated the appalling behavior of subjects was either flawed or the results deliberately skewed, possibly in response to the increasingly high-pressure “publish or perish” atmosphere in academia at that time.

As often happens, the results that were the most controversial (involving scenarios with prison guards or shock machines) got the most media buzz, and the conclusions made their way into our collective psyche, some never to be revisited.

Bregman has an engaging writing style, and his arguments are detailed, sound, and convincing. He posits that there is plenty of evidence from every branch of science that people are essentially good. Even when people do bad things, he explains, it’s often situationally related and in some sense arises from a good intent (acting out of conviction, believing they were doing something good), as when soldiers kill to protect their brothers-in-arms.

He opens the book by saying his radical idea is that “most people, deep down, are pretty decent.” The fact that people don’t think so is what he calls an “error in judgment.” The rest of the book is filled with evidence and anecdotes that back up his assertion:

-Contrary to the dark depiction of human nature in the book I most hated in high school, in a real-life Lord of the Flies scenario in 1965-66, a group of teenage boys stranded on a Pacific Island worked together to create a social structure that kept everyone alive and well for 15 months until they were rescued.

-Despite the persistent myth that humans are quick to become aggressive when panicked, most people on the Titanic, inside the Twin Towers on 9/11, and during Hurricane Katrina remained calm and helped each other to safety.

-Post-conflict surveys and other research show that, in spite of their training, most soldiers in combat don’t actually fire their weapons, or they fire them above their enemies’ heads.

Bregman believes that few ideas have as much power to shape the world as our view of other people.

And it’s self-fulfilling: if we believe most people can’t be trusted, that’s how we’ll treat each other, to everyone’s detriment.

Certainly, we are not all angels. But in times of crisis, the science is clear: our tendency is to show up for each other.

Having a balanced view of mankind is important. Even though I live in one of the safest areas of the country, if I spend too much time on the Nextdoor neighborhood app, I begin to be overly concerned about the number of break-ins in our area. Intellectually, we know that many bad things that happen are actually one-offs. But since our bodies are programmed to respond to fear above all things, we tend to over-generalize. This sets us up to be more fearful than trusting.

While this protective, physical response is helpful in times of actual danger, the rest of the time it can lead to paranoia, anxiety, and depression.

Many of us in our early religious training were taught that we are born sinful and must fight against that tendency each and every day. Until very recently, much of Western philosophy continued to perpetuate a fairly grim view of humanity.

The question is, does it serve us?

My own worldview, consistent with Bregman’s—is that it’s more helpful for us to focus on the goodness of people, and to give each other the benefit of the doubt. The terrible stories we see on the news are the exceptions, heavily weighted in a negative direction, when in our everyday life we see endless examples of people doing the right thing.

Social psychologists call this tendency to over-extrapolate from a few, dramatic headlines a negativity bias, a concept explored in the article How to Overcome Your Brain’s Fixation on Bad Things.

The good news is that we have control over our thinking, and we can choose to counterbalance this bias by seeking out evidence of kindness and cooperation, generosity and collaboration.

According to the Humankind author’s investigation, this more positive worldview is not only optimistic, it’s realistic!

Give it some thought this week—conduct your own observational study—and see if you think there is still great cause for hope for humanity, despite our flaws.

Affectionately,

Elaine

P.S. Speaking of a cause for hope, after having babied it for five years, and only seeing two blooms a couple of years ago, which I mentioned in my Life’s Rich Pageant post, my pink dogwood tree (above) is finally in full bloom!