From an evolutionary perspective, all human races are variations of the same gene pool. But if people are so similar to each other, why are human societies so different? T&P publishes science journalist Nicholas Wade's take on this paradox from the bestselling book An Inconvenient Inheritance. Genes, races and human history”, the translation of which was published by the Alpina Non-Fiction publishing house.
The main argument is this: these differences do not arise from some huge difference between individual representatives of the races. On the contrary, they are rooted in very small variations in the social behavior of people, for example, in the degree of trust or aggressiveness or in other character traits that developed in each race depending on geographical and historical conditions. These variations set the framework for the emergence of social institutions that differed significantly in character. Because of these institutions - largely cultural phenomena based on a foundation of genetically determined social behavior - the societies of the West and East Asia are so different from each other, tribal societies are so unlike modern states, and.
The explanation of almost all social scientists boils down to one thing: human societies differ only in culture. This implies that evolution played no role in the differences between populations. But explanations in the spirit of “it’s just culture” are untenable for a number of reasons.
First of all, this is just a guess. No one can currently say how much genetics and culture underlie the differences between human societies, and the claim that evolution plays no role is merely a hypothesis.
Second, the "it's only culture" position was formulated primarily by anthropologist Franz Boas to contrast it with racism; This is commendable from the point of view of motives, but there is no place in science for political ideology, no matter what kind it may be. Furthermore, Boas wrote his works at a time when human evolution was not known to have continued until the recent past.
Third, the “it's just culture” hypothesis does not provide a satisfactory explanation for why differences between human societies are so deeply rooted. If the differences between tribal society and the modern state were purely cultural, it would be quite easy to modernize tribal societies by adopting Western institutions. American experience with Haiti, Iraq and Afghanistan generally suggests that this is not the case. Culture undoubtedly explains many important differences between societies. But the question is whether such an explanation is sufficient for all such differences.
Fourthly, the assumption “this is only culture” is in dire need of adequate processing and adjustment. His successors failed to update these ideas to include the new discovery that human evolution continued into the recent past, was extensive, and was regional in nature. According to their hypothesis, which contradicts evidence accumulated over the past 30 years, the mind is a blank slate, formed from birth without any influence of genetically determined behavior. Moreover, the importance of social behavior, they believe, for survival is too insignificant to be the result of natural selection. But if such scientists accept that social behavior does have a genetic basis, they must explain how behavior could remain the same across all races despite massive shifts in human social structure over the past 15,000 years, while many other traits are now known to have evolved independently in each race, transforming at least 8% of the human genome.
“Human nature throughout the world is generally the same, except for slight differences in social behavior. These differences, although barely noticeable at the level of the individual, add up and form societies that are very different from each other in their qualities.”
The premise of [this] book suggests that, on the contrary, there is a genetic component to human social behavior; this component, very important for the survival of people, is subject to evolutionary changes and has indeed evolved over time. This evolution of social behavior certainly occurred independently in the five major and other races, and small evolutionary differences in social behavior underlie differences in social institutions, predominant in large human populations.
Like the “it's just culture” position, this idea is not yet proven, but rests on a number of assumptions that seem reasonable in light of recent knowledge.
First: the social structures of primates, including humans, are based on genetically determined behavior. Chimpanzees inherited the genetic template for the functioning of their characteristic societies from an ancestor that is common to humans and chimpanzees. This ancestor passed on the same pattern to the human lineage, which subsequently evolved to support traits specific to the social structure of humans from , which arose about 1.7 million years ago, to the emergence of hunter-gatherer groups and tribes. It's hard to understand why people are so high social view, must have lost the genetic basis for the set of social behaviors on which their society depends, or why this basis should not have continued to evolve during the period of the most radical transformation, namely the change that allowed human societies to grow in size from a maximum of 150 people in the hunting-gathering group to huge cities with tens of millions of inhabitants. It should be noted that this transformation must have developed independently in each race, since it occurred after their separation. […]
The second assumption is that this genetically determined social behavior supports the institutions around which human societies are built. If such forms of behavior exist, then it seems undeniable that institutions must depend on them. This hypothesis is supported by such reputable scientists as economist Douglas Northey and political scientist Francis Fukuyama: they both believe that institutions are based on the genetics of human behavior.
Third assumption: the evolution of social behavior has continued over the last 50,000 years and throughout historical time. This phase undoubtedly occurred independently and in parallel in the three main races after they had diverged and each had made the transition from hunting and gathering to sedentary life. Genomic evidence that human evolution has continued in the recent past, has been widespread and regional, generally supports this thesis, unless some reason can be found for social behavior to be free from the action of natural selection. […]
The fourth assumption is that advanced social behavior can in fact be observed in various modern populations. Behavioral changes historically documented for the English population during the 600-year period leading up to the Industrial Revolution include a decrease in violence and an increase in literacy, propensity to work and save. The same evolutionary changes appear to have occurred in other agrarian populations in Europe and East Asia before they entered their industrial revolutions. Another behavioral change is evident in the Jewish population, which has adapted over the centuries, first and then to specific professional niches.
The fifth assumption relates to the fact that significant differences exist between human societies, and not between their individual representatives. Human nature is generally the same throughout the world, with the exception of slight differences in social behavior. These differences, although subtle at the level of the individual, add up to form societies that are very different from each other in their qualities. Evolutionary differences between human societies help explain major turning points in history, such as China's construction of the first modern state, the rise of the West and the decline of the Islamic world and China, and the economic inequalities that have emerged in recent centuries.
To say that evolution has played some role in human history does not mean that this role is necessarily significant, much less decisive. Culture is a powerful force, and people are not slaves to innate inclinations, which can only direct the psyche one way or another. But if all individuals in a society have the same inclinations, albeit minor ones, for example, towards a greater or lesser level of social trust, then this society will be characterized by precisely this tendency and will differ from societies in which there is no such inclination.
Personality psychology is perhaps the most interesting branch of psychology. Since the late 1930s. active research began in personality psychology. As a result, by the second half of the last century, many different approaches and theories of personality had developed. Currently, there are about 50 definitions of the concept of personality
Personality is a stable system of socially significant traits that characterize an individual as a member of a particular society.
Most modern approach considers a person as a biopsychosocial system. And, by and large, the totality of these three factors: biological, psychological and social is the personality.
The biological factor is external signs: eye color, height, and nail shape; internal signs: sympathetic or parasympathetic type of autonomic nervous system, features of blood circulation, biorhythms, in a word: a biological factor is everything that relates to human anatomy and physiology.
The psychological factor is all mental functions: perception, attention, memory, thinking, emotions, will, which are based on a material substrate and are largely conditioned by it, i.e. determined genetically.
And finally, the third component of personality is social factor. What is meant by this social factor?
The social factor is, in principle, the entire experience of communication and interaction with people around us and with the world around us as a whole. Those. it is essentially the entire life experience of a person.
What do you think: at what point does personality formation begin?
I don’t remember who said it, but very precisely: “One is born an individual, one becomes an individual, and one defends individuality.”
People are born very similar. Of course, babies are different because each has its own individual set of biological qualities, as well as psychological ones, that will develop rapidly in the first years of life. And yet they are very similar to each other. Gradually, each person not only develops his psychological qualities, but also acquires social experience - the experience of relationships with the people around him. Gradually, a person grows up and the circle of people around him becomes wider, more diverse, and his communication experience becomes more and more versatile. This is how a personality is formed, this is how the uniqueness of each person multiplies, because everyone has their own life experience. It is impossible to plan and calculate, because too many random phenomena and circumstances interfere and integrate into the life of every person every day and every minute. Life experience is a social factor of the individual; it is formed not only on the basis of interaction with people, but also on the basis of interaction with various social and personal events.
For example, a person fell ill with a serious illness. What's happening? Here a person was born with a certain set of biological and psychological qualities, lived - developed - gained experience in social interactions and suddenly fell ill. An illness is an event that changes a biological factor - during the period of illness some part of his health was lost, the psychological factor also changed, since during an illness the state of all mental functions and memory, and attention, and thinking - in any case, the content of thinking - changes – now the person thinks about the disease and how to recover from it. The disease also affects the social factor. People around them treat a sick person differently than a healthy person. If the illness is short-lived, then its effect will be short and insignificant, and if we are talking about severe and long illness. For example, a child is 7 years old and it’s time for him to go to school - this event is planned, at school he will communicate with peers and teachers, a lot will change in his life and he will intensively acquire new social experience. What if the illness is serious and treatment requires several months? And in this case, a person will acquire his own unique social experience, only this experience will be different in content. He will communicate with peers, but not at school, but in the hospital, and he will also communicate with authoritative adults, but not with teachers, but with representatives of the medical profession. In addition, his relationships with close people around him will also change. Moreover, sometimes these changes in relationships with the immediate environment can continue not only during the period of illness, but also for a long time after. This example is a particular one, but it will illustrate how variable and not always predictable the social experience of each person can be.
It is this social experience that gives each person uniqueness and makes him unique, one of a kind. This is the answer to the question: why are all people different?
On the other hand, we often say: people are all the same and even throughout their history of existence, people have not changed much. S. Freud, in the course of creating his psychoanalytic theory, deduced the general principle of the psychological structure of man - the principle of absolute hedonism, which means that a person constantly strives to receive pleasure. Based on this principle, main need a person and the main motivation for all his actions is to obtain pleasure. Many people do not agree with this formulation and are ready to argue. Subsequently, this principle was refined, slightly changed and received the name of the principle of relative hedonism, which sounds like this: a person strives to have pleasure and live without conflicts. Those. a person, in his desire to obtain pleasure, constantly correlates the satisfaction of his needs with external circumstances, wanting to maintain a balance between his interests - pleasures and the social environment. The principle of absolute hedonism is inherent in the child’s psyche. If you observe a small child during the day, it becomes obvious that all his thoughts, interests and actions are aimed precisely at obtaining pleasure and restoring a state of internal comfort. Gradually, the child becomes involved in the process of socialization and the social one becomes the main limiting factor preventing pleasure. The more successfully socialization is completed, the more autonomous and, at the same time, more adaptive the personality is formed. Being happy and living without conflict is a universal guarantee mental health each individual – each person.
"Absolutely everything in this world was created for various purposes."
Question: Why were all people created completely different?
Answer: Without knowing the purpose of human creation, it will be impossible to understand the reasons for everything that happens in this world. Allah Almighty created people so that they would worship Him, and everything else in this world was created for man.
This world was not created for pleasure, and Akhirat is a place of eternal reward or eternal punishment. If all people were absolutely the same, then there would be no meaning left in the test, and it would be impossible to distinguish good man from bad. Therefore, a person is subjected to various difficulties on the path of worship and submission to Allah, and this makes it possible to distinguish the obedient from the disobedient.
Absolutely everything in this world was created for various purposes. For example, no one would even think of asking why a man cannot breastfeed. Because this is not what a man was created for.
Man was not created for entertainment and pleasure in this world, he was created for testing. For example, a student, in order to successfully pass an exam, must go through all sorts of difficulties. He refuses games and entertainment, and sleeps little, repeating his lessons.
If all people were created exactly the same from every point of view, great disasters would result. If people had the same appearance, height, skin color, material wealth, health and beauty, then they would be a copy of each other. And in this case it would be impossible to distinguish one person from the rest. The wife would not recognize her husband, nor the husband his wife; a man would be unable to distinguish his wife from his daughter, and life would be completely paralyzed. Thousands of problems would arise just because of the external similarity. And life would have died out even before similarities in other areas emerged.
The value of good can only be learned by encountering evil. If everyone were good, then goodness would lose its value and meaning. In the absence of ugliness, it is impossible to understand beauty.
Absolute similarity in everything causes great harm. That is why Allah Almighty created everything in this world, based on wisdom and justice. For example, if thumb hand was the same size as the other fingers, or was located in the middle, between the other fingers, then a person would not be able to use his hands so fruitfully, and this would be a disadvantage. The fact that the billions of people living on earth are not alike, and that each person has a unique individuality, is the clearest proof of the limitless power of our Creator.
All people have fantasy and imagination. We are all great dreamers and storytellers, some to a small extent, and others to a greater extent. And every day we imagine what will happen next, what we will do next, how we will rejoice or, on the contrary, be upset, that is, we build “castles in the air.” For some people this process is permanent. In fact, people live in the future, and the future for us is a projection of the past. And it turns out that people live somewhere in the past.
In fact, no person is like anyone else - that's a fact. This is how nature works for the survival of the species, for its adaptability - this is evolution. Everything is different for us, even for twins, it’s just not visible to the naked eye: arms, legs, shapes of body parts. What am I leading to all this, but to the fact that we are all different and this is the uniqueness of every person on earth.
Now imagine our planet, inhabited by people who are no different from each other. Of course there are men and women to reproduce. But all women are like two peas in a pod, and men are also alike. They differ only in their reproductive organs. In principle, this requires the same climate on the entire planet, imagine. So that there are no differences in skin color, eye shape, type of diet. And also everyone will be without hair, without clothes, the same height, build, a slightly different timbre of voice - rougher for men, softer for women - to differentiate the sexes. There are no leaders or rulers, there are only men, women and plants, because you need to eat something. There is no evolution. There are only minimal instincts - food, reproduction, raising children, sleep. Now think about it, would you like to be in such a life for a week, so that you can then remember what happened? I would like to, but that's all. In theory, such an existence will lead to nothing - neither good nor bad, no development - everything is in place, everything is in place. This is of course just a guess. This is hardly possible in the real world. But for contrast, it’s worth imagining! Our world is so complexly structured and thought out that God clearly did not abandon dice(Albert Einstein) And if we were all the same now, we would not be able to realize it. So try to be yourself in any situation, do what you want to do within the limits of the law and common sense. Nature made man the way he is for a reason. Think about this sometimes. Take the opinions of others only as attempts to make you stronger, because most opinions are simple envy. Always remember, there is no one like you anymore and there never will be. You are unique by nature!
