Introduction

Even the most cursory examination of human history will lead one to the realization that human behavior contains some very extraordinary anomalies. In particular:

• Human beings have enough intelligence and have used it successfully to harness nuclear fission, but cannot stop themselves from waging war.
• Human beings have enough intelligence and have used it successfully to invent digital computers, but have not come up with a reliable remedy for racism.
• Human beings had enough intelligence and used it successfully to put a man on the moon in the twentieth century, but could not stop the governments of this world from exterminating something on the order of 169 million human beings. ¹
• Human beings have enough intelligence and have used it successfully to invent and exploit the wheel, but have not come up with a reliable remedy for human exploitation.
• Human beings have enough intelligence and have used it successfully to eradicate smallpox, but cannot stop themselves from creating totalitarian governments.

Often I have heard people complain about the raw stupidity of the human race, yet it is very clear that there is something wrong with that explanation for human failures.

On the face of it, one can say that any subject that can be impersonalized and isolated from the daily ebb and flow of human relations can be analyzed and dealt with in an objective fashion. This is to say that we have shown ourselves adept at discovering and coping with the physical laws of this universe. However, when the subject necessarily involves human relations, it is often very difficult or impossible to bring human intelligence to bear in an effective problem-solving manner. This is to say that we have serious shortcomings when it comes to discovering and coping with ourselves.

Let's face it, war, racism, genocide, human exploitation and totalitarianism are not natural disasters; they are man made. We have general recognition that these kinds of behavior are undesirable, but we do not make, or cannot make, a systematic and sustained change in our behavior. Why is this?

This paper is an attempt to answer these questions.

Basic Premises

This paper is concerned with human behavior that originates in the human mental apparatus. I would like to explicitly exclude from consideration behavior that derives from immediate feedback from the spinal chord (e.g. the automatic jerking back of a hand that comes into contact with a very hot object).

Having made this exception, I submit that the following premises are critical to any valid understanding of basic human behavior:

1. Human actions derive from some motivational state.
2. Human motivational states are a product of the human mental apparatus.
3. The human mental apparatus is a product of the human genetic code.
4. The human genetic code is a product of natural selection.

When different people behave the same but are separated by large geographic distances, and by large periods of time, such that the likelihood of communication between them is remote, then that is what I term non-random human behavior. This paper will focus on non-random behavior as exhibited by thousands and millions of human beings. I find it inconceivable that every individual involved in an instance of non-random behavior (e.g. a war) is driven by a wholly unique motivational state. Surely large numbers of people involved in a mutual endeavor share similar or nearly identical motivational states. Surely non-random human behavior derives from non-random motivational states.

My earliest clues about what is involved in human motivational states derive from observing my own actions and the motivations behind them. However, while these clues are useful and valuable, they are subjective. Given that we cannot read minds, one might be tempted to say that it is not possible for us to reach any hard conclusions about human motivational states in general. However, I am convinced that such knowledge is not only possible but in fact already exists because:

1. Each of us can read one mind (i.e. our own).
2. Each of us knows (if we are honest and diligent) what the motivations are for our own behavior.
3. We commonly communicate what our motivations are to each other. We continually compare and contrast these motivations with our own.
4. We have enough information about human motivational states and we have seen enough behavior to often make highly reliable predictions about what is likely, or unlikely, to happen in many mundane circumstances.

Every time we get into an automobile and get onto the freeway, we are placing ourselves in an environment of heavy moving vehicles having kinetic energies on the order of a million foot-pounds. Most of us do this regularly with little trepidation. We are confident enough to risk our lives in this environment. I submit that this confidence derives from an understanding of the probable behavior of our fellow drivers, and from an understanding of the probable motivational states behind their behavior. Frankly I find most statements that human behavior is mysterious or inexplicable to be absurd.

Thus this paper is not so much an exercise in unveiling startling new insights into human motivational states as it is an exercise in honesty. It is an effort to coax you into admitting things that you already know but are reluctant to admit to yourself.

Redefinition

I have already made the case that human intelligence exists. The Internet that brought this paper to you is proof. The questions about why intractable manmade problems exist can be restated:

1. What mental processes stop human beings from bringing the full force of human intelligence (i.e. reason) to bear on many of the problems that confront them?
2. What mental process conflicts with reason and is powerful enough to win out over it?

I submit that the answer lies somewhere in natural selection. I the context of natural selection I intend to advance two hypotheses that:

1. Set forth a basic model of the human mental apparatus.
2. Identify the primary emotions that are the foundations of human motivational states.

If I had to summarize this paper with a single sentence, I would say that it is an attempt to define a general theory of human psychology.

Acknowledgments

While I have already stated that this paper is an attempt to integrate knowledge I have obtained from many other people, some mention should be made of which people are the major contributors:

I am indebted to Ayn Rand for supplying the basic philosophical context that I operate within. I am especially grateful for her work An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Charles Darwin and all those involved in researching the origins of man have supplied the basic historical background for this work. In particular, statements made by Richard Leakey constitute some of the fundamental premises of this paper.

Much of the reference that I make to the physiology of the human brain derives from the work of Carl Sagan as he expressed it in his book The Dragons of Eden. Although Dr. Sagan was not first and foremost a physiologist, I have found that his work nevertheless contained a useful summary of significant points on that subject.

And the person who has helped, more than any other, to advance my awareness of human emotions and the effects they have is Nathaniel Branden.

I owe a very special debt to Jane Goodall for her research on chimpanzees. More than any other contributor, Dr. Goodall helped to establish the full context of reality that this paper seeks to embrace. Indeed, beyond even the context of this paper, it is hard to overstate the significance of Dr. Goodall's work.

Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson have supplied a significant part of the record of chimpanzee and bonobo behavior that this work references. In particular their book Demonic Males, Apes and the Origins of Human Violence has been a primary resource.

Frans de Waal has supplied a significant portion of the information on chimpanzee politics that this work references. In particular his book Chimpanzee Politics was a primary resource.

Again, Frans de Waal and Frans Lanting supplied a significant body of information on bonobos in their work Bonobo, The Forgotten Ape.

I also owe a very special debt to Jared Diamond for his work Guns, Germs, and Steel. Much of the initial summary in the chapter on history is derived from this work.

Finally, I would like to thank Jodi Berls, Robert Tinney and Margaret Madison for their help in preparing this manuscript.

All this being said, this particular amalgam of ideas is my own doing, and whatever credit or blame is to be associated with it is mine. In particular, the sections dealing with emotions, the tetrahedral model, the psychological forces driving history, and the future are based almost exclusively on my own observations.

As an aside, my own formal training is in geology, teaching and software engineering. Human evolution and natural selection have been lifetime interests of mine.

Footnotes