Human instincts have served as survival mechanisms from our earliest days as human beings. Some are embodied in our genes (e.g. DRD4 gene variant V7, leads people to be more open, while OXTR gene variant rs53578 leads to more altruistic behavior), while some of our emotions are hormonal, e.g. the relative amounts of dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, adrenaline, norepinephrine, cortisone, testosterone etc. circulating in our blood. In addition, some contributors to our instincts may be environmental factors that then get inherited in our genes via epigenetics. These emotions and instincts power our behavior via ‘emotional hijacking’ (or ‘amygdala hijack’) leading to instinctual decision-making that is usually unconscious to us.
Interestingly, we all differ in how we each respond to these variety of stimuli, and fMRI scans show differences in our biology and genetics also influences our differences in attitudes and beliefs. Our brains responses differ along a continuum to external stimuli such as uncertainty, fear and strangers. For example, self-identified conservatives tend to have a larger amygdala and show greater ‘startle’ responses than self-identified liberals in fMRI experiments. Consequently, they are more likely to support capital punishment, strict immigration, bigger military spending etc.
The Brain/Behavior Continuum
People who are more ‘closed’ on the brain/behavior continuum have a harder time dealing with uncertainty and have a greater need to maintain order and security. While people who are more ‘open’ can tolerate greater uncertainty, are more open to curiosity, and seek excitement and novelty. They are also more likely to show flexibility in their habitual responses when cues indicate its necessity. Even aspects of our political beliefs may be genetically hard-wired, as shown by Hatemi and McDermott. From an evolutionary point of view, it may have provided useful to have varied types of dispositions in a grouop or tribe to ensure the best survival responses to different sets of societal challenges. From this point of view, the growth in liberalism today may be viewed as a ‘luxury’, because many societies are less deadly today than in the past, when basic needs such as food and safety are not assured.
Instincts versus Thoughts
Our system-one brains operate automatically, quickly, and instinctually, usually at least half a second before conscious thought sets in. Consequently, we first feel an emotion, and then resort to logic to justify our behavior. In addition, we are strongly inclined to support members of our own ‘tribe’ before we help others, and so our desire to co-operate is limited to members with whom we feel kinship. In general, the hormones testosterone and oxytocin, produced when we associate with groups with whom we feel kinship, further cement our tribe-like bonds and rituals. Oxytocin has been shown to promote bonding within groups while reducing the fear of social betrayal. However, it can also promote ethnocentric behavior, and increase our suspicion of others we perceive as ‘outside’ our current tribe. Conversely, conflict between tribes can also bring out a need to belong. Perceiving others as belonging to other, more ‘successful’ tribes fuels our need to join competing tribes, often leading to war.
Neuroscience of Empathy
In opposition to the hormonal urges that drive us to belong to tribes and compete with other tribes, our so-called ‘mirror neurons’ allow us to empathize with the emotions of others, based on our perception of power structures within our social group. Note that empathy too is felt more strongly for members of our own group. In general, women show stronger levels of empathy than men, probably as part of their evolutionary role as primary caregivers of infants. However, our empathetic instincts are usually subservient to our tribal emotions. Interestingly, the desire to belong usually trumps the desire to be right, so our beliefs and belief-systems are heavily biased to those beliefs that tie us to our group, even when they may contradict fact or logic.
The role of Memory in Belief Systems
When our beliefs our contradicted by others, we often feel stronger emotions tying us to these beliefs. However fMRI scans show that our reasoning capacity does not increase in tandem. Instead, we are no better at understanding others when their beliefs contradict our own. Ironically, our beliefs are usually built on faulty memories, as research has shown that our brain edits past events (including historical events we have great certainty about), and generally are memories are malleable enough for our brains to create any story to fit our current situation, particularly when our belief has been called into doubt. Consequently, the function of belief (enabling us to maintain ties to our group or tribe), is more important than the content contained within that belief, which is ‘plastic.’ Rather than asking people to change their minds over a belief, asking them what they would lose by changing their minds often leads to clarification of what they are really concerned about. By revealing the underlying need or desire that causes people to cling to their belief systems, leaders can steer them to belief systems that provide them with greater emotional sustenance.
We protect our belief systems by unconsciously seeking out sources that support them, while studiously ignoring sources that contradict them. We are strongly motivated to protect our existing social, economic and political arrangements, not necessarily because they are right, but because they address the psychological needs of ourselves and our tribe. Consequently, we may feel that violence initiated by our tribe or group is justified, while violence by other competing tribes (‘enemies’) is not.
Strength versus Altruism
It generally takes us less than a tenth of a second for our minds to determine someone’s leadership capabilities, with our decision being determined by a combination of genetics, brain structures and hormones such as adrenaline, norepinephrine, and cortisol. Typically, we prefer a ‘strong’ leader over a ‘right’ leader, particularly when we feel threatened. (This is an example of ‘mismatch theory’ – instincts based on an evolutionary past and desire for survival, not for a globalizing world.) However, humans are intrinsically social, and our survival has always depended on interactions with others and the formation of alliances. Our tendency for co-operation and altruism appears to be the ‘glue’ that underlies our ability to live in ever larger groups. Further, nationhood depends on large-scale co-operation between genetically unrelated individuals. Good leaders learn to strengthen shared identity via group symbolism, e.g., history, flags, games, parades, sports, anthems etc.
Leadership and Conflict Resolution
Good leaders do not base their strategies solely on reason. They understand that anger and aggression (conflict) are usually rooted in fear, often the fear of what an individual may lose if they are forced to change their mind about a belief or decision. Good leaders also know what matters emotionally to the groups they manage, and leverage in-group support to provide the binding oxytocin that in turn enables mediation between conflicting beliefs and a sense of comfort in abandoning one cherished belief for another. Further, good leaders find new groups for people that changed their belief to join, in order to provide a support system that makes the new belief ‘stick.’ Since context generally governs behavior, good leaders set up choice ‘architectures’ where people can continually be at their best, not their worst.
Comentarios