Image: Dacher Keltneer
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Why do people do good things? Is kindness hard-wired into the brain, or does this tendency arise via experience? Or is goodness some combination of nature and nurture?
Dacher Keltner, director of the Berkeley Social Interaction Laboratory, investigates these questions from multiple angles, and often generates results that are both surprising and challenging. In his new book, Born to Be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life, Keltner weaves together scientific findings with personal narrative to uncover the innate power of human emotion to connect people with each other, which he argues is the path to living the good life. Keltner was kind enough to take some time out to discuss altruism, Darwinism, neurobiology and practical applications of his findings with David DiSalvo.
DISALVO: You have a book that was just released called Born to Be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life. What in a nutshell does the term “born to be good” mean to you, and what are you hoping people learn from reading the book?
KELTNER: “Born to be good” for me means that our mammalian and hominid evolution have crafted a species—us—with remarkable tendencies toward kindness, play, generosity, reverence and self-sacrifice, which are vital to the classic tasks of evolution—survival, gene replication and smooth functioning groups. These tendencies are felt in the wonderful realm of emotion—emotions such as compassion, gratitude, awe, embarrassment and mirth. These emotions were of interest to Darwin, and Darwin-inspired studies have revealed that our capacity for caring, for play, for reverence and modesty are built into our brains, bodies, genes and social practices. My hopes for potential readers are numerous. I hope they learn about the remarkable wisdom of Darwin and the wonders of the study of emotion. I hope they come to look at human nature in a new light, one that is more hopeful and sanguine. I hope they may see the profoundly cooperative nature of much of our daily social living.
DISALVO: You’ve said that one of the inspirations for your work was Charles Darwin’s insights into human goodness. Because most people equate his name with “survival of the fittest,” it’ll probably be surprising to many that Darwin focused on goodness at all. What were a few of your take aways from Darwin’s work that really inspired you?
KELTNER: What an important question. We so often assume both in the scientific community, and in our culture at large, that Darwin thought humans were violent and competitive and self-interested in their natural state. That is a misrepresentation of what Darwin actually believed, and where the evolutionary study of human goodness is going.
My take aways from Darwin are twofold, and as you suggest above, I was surprised as well in arriving at an understanding of Darwin’s view of human nature. The first take away is found in Descent of Man, where Darwin argues that we are a profoundly social and caring species. This idea is reflected in the two quotes below, where Darwin argues that our tendencies toward sympathy are instinctual and evolved (and not some cultural construct as so many have assumed), and even stronger (or perhaps more ethical—see his observation about the “timid man” below) than the instinct for self-preservation:
“For firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take pleasure in the society of his fellows, to feel a certain amount of sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them. … Such actions as the above appear to be the simple result of the greater strength of the social or maternal instincts than that of any other instinct or motive; for they are performed too instantaneously for reflection, or for pleasure or even misery might be felt. In a timid man, on the other hand, the instinct of self-preservation might be so strong, that he would be unable to force himself to run any such risk, perhaps not even for his own child.”
See what we're tweeting about
35 Comments
Add CommentInstinct or behavior
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the final paragraphs of Disalvo’s interview Keltner details many behavioral characteristics which are strikingly similar to those prescribed by Norman Vincent Peal in his books which discussed methods to develop a positive mental attitude and improved disposition. Peal described these characteristics as behaviors, rather then latent instincts as Keltner does. Peal insisted when these characteristics are practiced they improve not only the self but the world at large. Dr. Smiley Blanton, eminent psychologist and practicnor of the 20th century, taught precisely the same thing, and like Peal documented innumerable cases supporting the thesis. Whether these characteristics are instinctive or learned deserves study, if it will increase their awareness and practice through out the world; because clearly it is a far better place when they, and not their opposites, are employed.
Great article, and findings concerning the physiology of compassion, are desire to give, happiness and its relation to personal and societal well being. I look forward to additonal research in this area. It is interesting to me how these basic princibles are becoming more prevalent and recognized specifically in the workplace. My personal belief and experience is that as hard as we try to display these life giving characteristics on our own strength, we will always fall short. It is not until we surrender our whole being to the living God...that He is able to work through us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"My personal belief and experience is that as hard as we try to display these life giving characteristics on our own strength, we will always fall short. It is not until we surrender our whole being to the living God...that He is able to work through us."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishmm
I thought I saw that the article says that animals other than humans have these qualities; so do animals need a religion to be the best animal they can , to not "fall short"?
Welcome to Buddhism 101 Mr. Darwin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish I could say that Darwin knew about Buddhist teaching, but so little was available in his day and it was only with the British and American savants of the remainder of the century that the texts made available in English, so that is it most unlikely. However, Darwin came from a family of freethinkers and his beloved wife, even moreso. And one has only to read their love letters to know that he was a man who made use of all the facilities of being human, and not just statistical intellect. They deeply and truly love and respected each other and were model parents to their large brood. And I think it is telling that although they had purchased showy new furniture when first married, they didn't close off the social rooms of their house, but let the children live in it--often to disastrous effects on the upholstery.
I wonder what Darwin's background was in Aristotle and if he was exposed to what was known of the pre-Socratics at that time in his theology training. In a fascinating new book, The Shape of Ancient Thought, by Thomas McEvilley, the compelling argument is put forth that the germ of what we call Western thought and Western science--no difference as you know until the mid-19th--was actually Indian via Persia and then with a second dose from Alexander the Great. (Certainly the notion of evolution is found in Epicurean philosophy and in the Roman Lucretius, and of course, the atomic theory in earlier ancients.) And that, of course, would help to explain the ideas of sympathy, co-operation and most of all, the quintessential Buddhist notion of compassion. But taking these observations of the natural world into what was coming to be called science, would, of course, be the contribution of Darwin and his generation.
Born to be good? Absolute hogwash, but an interesting discussion nonetheless. We are born with the capacity to do things that are "good" and also things that are destructive to ourselves and others. The capacity and the decision to act on these tendencies are two different things. Going with the tagline, "we can succeed by not being cutthroat" implies that we must purposely adopt a social construct that promotes these virtues identified by the author in order to access our inner goodness and then win the evolutionary game. When it comes to decision-making, it's "nurture" all the way, baby. The more that we let ourselves be governed by our own naturally evolved feelings and desires, the more we will live in chaos and squalor. Kindness is purposeful, not random.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishmmm...oops thought they were transferring the findings to humans. I am not talking about religion here, I am talking about a mutual relationship with God where we allow Him to work through us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe title of this article is certainly misinformed. As the article well demonstrates, kindness and cooperation do indeed select for fitness to survive in a given environment. Survival of the fittest is often misinterpreted to mean survival of the most aggressive. Fitness is a much broader term than that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate these comments, esp as a committed Buddhist, but let us not restrict compassion to one faith. Most of the others place a high value on compassion even if human religious behavior does not always reflect it. Thank for the nod to what looks like an interesting book!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Stoic philosophers would agree with most of the article. There is a "natural"state that humans can live - which is one which exemplifies a deep sense of character. When we are not living in that state we are discontent. I think many other wisdom traditions would agree with this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCool, so now those who believe in evolution have even more scientific evidence to throw in the face of IDers who claim that without ID there would be no morality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see morality and immorality as forming chains. When you seek wrath, you become a link in the chain of wrath as wrath begets wrath. Become a link in the chain of kindness and you'll find that kindness begets kindness. In other words, "do unto others as you would have do unto you" makes perfect sense because what you do to others, will be done to you in kind. Its up to you whether or not you want them to be acting out of retaliation or gratitude.
That's so true Nathaniel. Of course there's no reason to throw anything in anyone's face. As you say - act out of gratitude rather than retaliation. Although IDer's are misguided about the nature of how the world came to be, I think I can grant them the idea that there is an intention of how humans should treat each other. Treating each other poorly is not how we were intended to be. But you can hold to any philosophical or religious perspective and and go against this basic principle - as most of us have done and will do again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-Dave B.
- He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living hand to mouth. (Goethe)
Hey Nathaniel where did you get "do unto others as you would have do unto you"? Did you make that up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the one thing common to every religion and system of ethics
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo unto others as you wish them to do to you is common to all religions and systems of ethics
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf an individual worked like an Anthropologist or Physicists studying to the depths of existence in search of evils root, would he be able to find it? If we remove the products of defective genes, the consequences of rage, and every characteristic attributable to cultural mores from the study-set what remains of human behavior is either learned or instinctive. If an individual is companionate instinctively then mustnt the inverse apply also? If that is the case, without deliberate intervention civilization is headed for greater tribulation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with Josaphia but I do not believe in the bibles version of God I believe in good, it is born within us we must let it develop and swamp the evil that also is within us,I find prayer helps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" (also call reciprocal altruism) is a hardwired behavior that has been seen in many social animals, and humans are no different. It has a clear adaptive advantage (united we stand, divided we fall). The different spin in the human interaction is that, depending on the availability of resources, we use discriminators (such as race, religion, sex) to determine who deserves to be reciprocated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere is a lot in the interview reflecting india phiolosophy and culture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin the traditional school education lots of importance is given for ethics and values,all the epics namely RAMYANA and BHARATHA are debates on thses issues. the philosophy of advaita has roots in evolution
p r venkateswaran ,bangalore india
the vinterview reflects ideas practised in India since millions of years.The epics namely Ramayana Mahabharatha are debates on the issues of ethics and values.The theory of evolution in the advanced stages can be seen as a reflection of advaita
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have long believed that there is a "spiritual evolution" taking place. There are those who "see" with eyes connected to a heart that speaks to them. And there are those who continue making choices without spiritual connection, promoting atrocities just as brutal as those in past history. It seems almost inconceivable that these two divergent pathways do not understand each other. One is vertical and requires a hierarchy, a fight for the top, but weak in its resistance and climb. The other is cyclical, joining forces in vortex and creating one of the strongest forces in nature. We should be learning more about the interconnection of spirit with the physiology of self. Our choices irrevocably result in spiritual and psychological consequences that have been proven time and time again..(PTSD, et al...) It is time that we admit that the spiritual is indeed much more real than we are led to believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have long believed that there is a "spiritual evolution" taking place. There are those who "see" with eyes connected to a heart that speaks to them. And there are those who continue making choices without spiritual connection, promoting atrocities just as brutal as those in past history. It seems almost inconceivable that these two divergent pathways do not understand each other. One is vertical and requires a hierarchy, a fight for the top, but weak in its resistance and climb. The other is cyclical, joining forces in vortex and creating one of the strongest forces in nature. We should be learning more about the interconnection of spirit with the physiology of self. Our choices irrevocably result in spiritual and psychological consequences that have been proven time and time again..(PTSD, et al...) It is time that we admit that the spiritual is indeed much more real than we are led to believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have long believed that there is a "spiritual evolution" taking place. There are those who "see" with eyes connected to a heart that speaks to them. And there are those who continue making choices without spiritual connection, promoting atrocities just as brutal as those in past history. It seems almost inconceivable that these two divergent pathways do not understand each other. One is vertical and requires a hierarchy, a fight for the top, but weak in its resistance and climb. The other is cyclical, joining forces in vortex and creating one of the strongest forces in nature. We should be learning more about the interconnection of spirit with the physiology of self. Our choices irrevocably result in spiritual and psychological (and indeed physiological) consequences that have been proven time and time again..(PTSD, et al...) It is time that we admit that the spiritual is truly much more real than we are led to believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure that I'd say hogwash but it seems to me that "Born To Be Good" is naive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. I saw a television interview with a an old guy who had spent most of his life in jail as a bank robber and killer. He said that he was "born bad". We have all run into the types who were born self-centered, greedy or even psychopathic. In other words there is a spectrum of innate goodness or badness.
2. Culture plays a huge role. Whether formal laws or unwritten rules of conduct we select those traits that are necessary. An outcast gang member in modern Germany is a hero in Nazi Germany. In medieval Europe, a petty thief's hand could be cut off, witches were drowned and heretics burned.
3. Strength, the willingness to be tough and aggressiveness are still necessary in today's world. Part of this relates to innate needs that we see when children play. Rough housing, contact sports, violence in literature, movies, video games attest to innate needs. They are not bad things of themselves, only when that is all that is allowed. We also need to balance
aggressiveness with our also innate needs to cooperate, help, share and care.
4. Part of this need for toughness is practical. Whether a cop dealing with a bad guy, a soldier dealing with a national enemy or a businessperson competing in the market we need a balance. The trick in our societies is optimising that balance not just going all the way to one side or the other such as what we are seeing today with the greed of the business elite.
5. Self interest is a powerful and necessary social force. It is good because we are useless if we won't look after ourselves. It means that we get our fair share but not at the expense of others. It is not greed.
6. Game theory suggests that to "cooperate" or to "defect" work in different situations. In a stable society, cooperation is the most effective strategy. People who don't cooperate are eventually shunned or jailed. However, If society is crumbling and all that you have left is your family then you better fight though you should also look very carefully for allegiances.
If you'd like more on Dacher Keltner, there's a two part audio interview with him that focuses on the business-side of pro-social emotions and how to get ahead at work by understanding how to "bring others to completion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://personallifemedia.com/podcasts/232-dishymix/episodes/26578-dacher-keltner-born-good-jen-ratio-cro
Pretty interesting stuff. This sort of research brings a degree of scientific validation of centuries-old folk wisdom, doesn't it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone has morals. Just because you don't see someone having the same morals you do, doesn't mean the person doesn't have any. To say so is simply another selfish act of agression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil someone can show, or even define good and evil, I'll there is no such thing, but only constructive and destructive, and most things that are constructive in one sense are destructive in another, and vice versa. Most seem to choose to see only one side.
The less purpose there is in a persons life, the more they seem to fill the void with fits of supernatural human-centric delusions of grandeur.
If learning from three thousand years of living is considered good, what then, is realizing the ignorance of those three thousand years, and learning from 14 billion years instead?
Silly people.
It sometimes takes a real concious effort to be kind to one another. One only has to look how small children behave amongst themselves to see the basic animal nature of human beings. Left to themselves, humans fight to aquire the position of alpha primates...potential bloodthirsty dictators. Some religions and philosophies resist this temptation, but being kind means never being caught off one's guard... Ethics too have evolved!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is also past and recent work on tribal behaviour including acceptance processes of individuals to be in the "in" crowd or be ousted as outsiders. e.g. intervillage marriages
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsually mutual giving leads to strengthened relations.
Check out Dacher Keltner's podcasts of his class lectures at Berkeley on iTunesU or at http://www.learnoutloud.com/Catalog/Social-Sciences/Psychology. They are amazing!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for pointing out Dr. Peale's contributions to this area. Another contributor, I just realized, is none other than Benjamin Franklin, the champion of mutually beneficial cooperative enterprises.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is notable that there's a contrast between today's Democratic and Republican parties. The latter has distinguished itself as the bastion of harsh judgementalists and the perpetrator of the "attack strategy," where they refuse to budge even in the face of open offers of conciliation. Notable too is their "confusion" regarding what their purpose and motives should be - it's apparently slanted toward getting more power for the party rather than for creating a government which serves its citizens. I think David DiSalvo might consider their strategy a recipe for disaster (for themselves and for the country as well).
I just hope that DiSalvo can give more solid substantiation than I see in this interview. I guess maybe I should read his book? ;-)
The report s heartwarming. But, as far as cold logic is concerned, it contains one major error. There are no genetically predetermined traits, behavioral, or otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll individual traits including behavioral traits), of all living organisms (including humans), develop ontogenetically (in the individual organism), under inseparable (!) effects of both (!) genes & environment (nature & nurture), of course, also plus inseparable effects of that which already exists at each point along this developmental (ontogenetic) process.
Ruth: I don't think he was arguing that empathy itself is genetically determined, only the aptitude for it. Makes sense to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the importance of the vagus nerve in mediating these traits, the following seems fairly alarming:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbstract:
Clinical Studies have demonstrated that the cries of chronically
stressed infants, medical compromised infants are characteristically
higher and more variable in pitch than those of healthy infants.
Other studies have indicated that the vagal tone of chronically
stressed infants is significantly reduced in comparison to that of
normal infants. A neural model of cry production has been proposed
which suggests that decreased vagal tone among infants at risk may,
in fact, be related to these increases in cry pitch. Using routine,
unanesthetized circumcision as a model of stress we were able to
examine the relationship between cry acoustics and vagal tone in
normal, healthy newborns undergoing an acutely stressful event.
Newborn Pain Cries and Vagal Tone: Parallel Changes in Response to
Circumcision
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/porter2/
It seems obstetrical medicine is riddled with sociopaths.
Kindness and cooperation is only one side of the coin...yin and yang. Rather than people being born with kindness, we should be looking into the inate trait of humans to compete. I liked the comment on game theory, one that would say there are appropriate times to be kind and competitive, based on all the games variables. This is lost when considering Buddhism, that believes kindness is always the correct choice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsider this...early man started out in competition for a small amount of land, food, and resources. Consider it a tribal stage that is very early on in mankind's history of communities. As mankind spread out and started to discover a vastness of land, these groups which were once competing have now allied, developed compassion towards eachother so that they can survive as a larger group in competition from other larger groups. We evolve that idea all the way to what we have today...nations. Nationalism is no doubt a phenomena, seen greatly so in the US, and other prominent countries. We have gone from once fighting for the same land/food/resources, to work together to grow this group we have formed. When we fast forward from the early stages of human civilizations, to today, we notice much more compassion and kindness to our close neighbors. The closer you are, the more kind you most likely are. As is stands today, we still compete, from country to country, but what if we continued this pattern. With all that we know of astrology, there is a good chance life is elsewhere in the 'infinite' universe. What will happen when/if humans discover other intelligent life elsewhere. Will our inate triats of competition cause us to bring kindness and compassion throughout the world, breaking down barriers that we artificialy create (borders) to unite as a stroger team to compete on a larger scale?
Please don't misunderstand my viewpoints on kindness, I do not believe it is a side effect of competition, but both seem to be present in almost every human being, and why and how can they co-exist? Competition, in the busshist sense, seems to be weighing human kind down...but when you scale it, you get....pride?
could someone summarize the article? what is about?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this