Human Nature

 “The tendency of man’s heart is towards evil from his youth.”  (Genesis 8:21)

I kept a set of wooden building blocks in my office. Watching children play with those blocks I learned much about human nature. 

Watch a young child with a set of blocks, and notice that there is a destructive side of human nature.  A tower built with the blocks is there to be knocked down.  The child will laugh, smile, and wait for you to build the tower again so that it may once again be knocked down.  Notice the child’s delight as the blocks are scattered helter-skelter, the louder the better.

As the child gets a bit older you may notice the child getting into a cycle of stacking blocks, knocking them down, and then stacking anew.  Then comes a time when the child hesitates, stops and looks.  This represents a subtle shift, an internal tension, to knock down or to let stand.  The child now allows the tower to remain erect, adding to it, wanting it to be taller and more elaborate.  You see, beginning to emerge, that there is a creative side of human nature.

Not only does the child admire the now standing tower, but the child seeks out others to notice what has been created.  There is an approval-seeking, praise-seeking side of human nature.

The child will defend their tower from destruction by siblings and other children. If asked by adults to put away the blocks, the child may request that the tower be allowed to remain standing.  There is a possessive and protective side of human nature.

There is a competitive and aggressive side of human nature.  One’s own tower is protected, but another’s tower is looked at with jealousy and envy.  Another builder is a feared rival, especially if the other is a sibling.  The child may want to destroy the tower of their rival.  Parents step in. “You want to knock down your brother’s tower, but you are not allowed to do that.” To live peaceably with others, that child must be taught social rules and constraints.  Nurture must now modify nature. It is okay to have the feelings, but it is not okay to destroy.  Human nature must be kept in check.

With time, the destructive side of human nature will become internally regulated, no longer requiring the external prohibiting parental voice.  But somewhere, deep within, there often remains an echo of that early destructive nature.  There is pleasure in the crash of a Jenga tower falling, the crash of bowling pins scattering, the crash of bumper cars colliding, the crash of bodies playing football, the crash of buildings imploding during demolition.  Fortunately, for most, the destructive side of human nature recedes into the largely unconscious background as the creative side grows and develops.

Watch two children with a set of blocks and they may discover pleasure in sharing, building, and creating cooperatively with one another.  Good news, there is a social and affiliative side to human nature.  

Dear Dr. Phil,

Maybe it’s my Covid lifestyle, or maybe it’s because I’m a retired child psychiatrist in need of a daily vicarious mental health care fix . . . whatever it is, I’ve been watching a lot of your show lately.

Actually, I’ve watched you on and off for a long time.  I often quoted (or misquoted) you to parents, telling them that it is you who says, “It is a parent’s responsibility to raise adults.”  Over the years, I found this line to be a good catalyst for many fruitful discussions.

I’ve always admired and studied your clear and direct style of communication with guests on your show.

I’ve always envied your support team and the resources available for you to pass on to your guests.

I’ve recently noticed some things you say with regularity.  I often hear you say to your guests that, “Perception is reality.”  All I need to do is flip channels back and forth between FOX News and CNN to know the truth of that statement.  In these troubled times, it is apparent that this country is divided, red and blue, living with very different perceptions and very different realities.

There is another line you frequently tell guests.  In fact, I heard you say it just today.  “There are no versions of the truth.”  I had to stop and think about it.  Truth is truth. If what you say is so, there must be a significant difference between ‘reality’ and ‘truth’.  I know that inaccurate perceptions can create false realities.  I know that the lies told by some can create false realities in others.  It may not be the ‘truth’, it may be a false reality, but to the individual it is still their ‘reality’.

Dr. Phil, help me. You are trained in forensic psychology.  You are trained to notice subtle and not so subtle cues from those that seek to deceive.  Help me know in this contentious political climate how to sort out accurate perceptions from misperceptions.  Help me to detect the truthtellers from the liars.

Dr. Phil, I hope you will use your influential platform to help the country sort out accurate from inaccurate perceptions, truth from lies. Please share your psychological and forensic perspective in this time of national crisis. There are few who can reach and teach as many as you. 

It is my perception, or misperception, that democracy’s future is at stake.

 

Sincerely,

 

Gary H. Boxer, M.D.

Darwin's Theory

“Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.”  (Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, atheist—1872-1970)

There was a time when the findings of science, especially physics and astronomy, seemed to demonstrate an orderly and predictable universe.  Just as a clock cannot make itself, a world governed by mathematical rules and laws cannot have made itself. The findings of science were interpreted as affirmation of a creator, God.

However, as science evolved, especially biology, religious tenets were called into question. Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, became a catalyst for debate, suspicion, and even animosity, between science and religion.

Darwin’s theory presents a serious challenge to religious dogma. Species have evolved one from another, changing or dying over time, in a fashion different from the account in Genesis. Evolution happens in time measured by millions of years, in contrast to the literal biblical dating of creation. Humans have evolved from earlier pre-human species, the human species evolving in continuity with the animal kingdom, not special, and not in God’s image.

Hardest to reconcile with religious tenet is that evolution is a random, unguided process that occurs without aim or purpose.  The arbitrary process of evolution does not require the guidance of a higher power.

Authors Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, collectively called The Four Horsemen of Atheism, build their case for atheism upon evolutionary theory. Evolution explains the origin of species, including man, without invoking a need for God.  Furthermore, unlike religion, science is premised on testable hypothesis and is open to revision.  These authors go a step further, arguing that religion, unlike science, is based on irrational superstitions that are harmful to society. They believe that religious belief should be actively confronted and refuted.

Evolutionary theorist, Stephen Jay Gould, disagreed.  He felt that science and religion could peacefully and respectfully coexist. Shortly before his death he wrote that science and religion asked different questions using different tools and should be considered separate domains of inquiry, what he called “non-overlapping magisteria”.  Gould maintained that questions of purpose, meaning, and values were best addressed in the domain of religious inquiry.

I recently taught an introductory philosophy class to a group of medical students. We talked about evolutionary theory and its challenge to religion.  In this class there were several Hindu students who, unlike those of us raised in Western religious tradition, did not see any conflict between science and their religion.  In fact, they believed that science must be fully accepted and integrated into religious belief.  For them, science is a reality that exists within a greater Reality. It is a truth that exists within a greater Truth that they call Brahman.