Each person perceives and analyses the world in his own and unique way.
This is the true origin of preferred tastes and opinions. It is as if each one of us was born with a filter, that makes us sense and analyse “reality” in a particular way, different and impossible to compare with that of others.
There is no doubt that personal experience influences us, modulating our appreciations, but this doesent change the fact that our personal way of feeling, both of our internal and external “world”, ends up being the most important factor in determining our perception and our conciousness, and, consequently, influencing our conduct in a very important degree.
This “filter” has its origin in the unique conformation and function of the brain, and other organs of each person.
This particular organic conformation is determined in its origin by the genetic information that each person has inherited. Nevertheless, for reasons that we still dont fully understand, given the limited advance of scientific knowledge available in these subjects, even when the genetic information is very alike or even identical (monozygous twins), it seems that the organic result always has differences.
Traditionally, a lot of importance has been given to the influence of the environment in the conformation of the character, that adds to the influence of the “nature” of each person, to build up the “full personality” of an individual.
Some scientific or pseudocientific schools of thought have stated that it is possible, if you start “indoctrinating and training” a child from very early, to influence his physical and mental development to a point that will accomplish the goal of producing whatever you desire, for example outstanding artists, soldiers, judges, etc.
I can not oppose enough to this way of thinking. This obviously has never been accomplished with any “previously unselected” group of children, and has, on the contrary, inflicted terrible torments and psychological trauma to the victims of these experiments.
Everything seems to imply that the “filter” each of us is born with is the most determining factor of our personality and potentialities.
A relevant factor is that this filter seems to be very stable throughout each persons lifetime, with a very limited capacity of substantial change.
Popular knowledge has some very typical remarks, one of which is the characterization of a person , in a recurring exercise that produces a special satisfaction. An example can be something like this one: “I already know what kind of individual this person is, he is absolutely dishonest, be careful with him, because if you let him, he will take advantage of you. And dont believe him if he tells you he has changed, for this people never change”.
This typical negative characterization of someone has probably been stated millions of times along human history, and we all have probably heard something similar more than once.
On top of the “true nature” of each individual, people normally tend to maintain an “adequatete appearence” to others. The degree of concern about maintainig this “good image” seems to be also genetically determined, being very important for some, and less for others.
For many people, as long as the good image they present to others is maintained, it is of secondary importance to respect principles and values, because they priorize decisions that aim to specific, practical and utilitarian goals or benefits.
For others, their principles and values are of so relevant importance that they respect them at all costs, even to the point of risking their lives, in extreme circumstances.
From these points of view, people can be categorized with more or less ease, for example, persons that are clearly honest or dishonest, straightforward or ambiguous, transparent or crooked, and can be difficult to categorize when they hide their true feelings and intentions, especially if their instinctive drives are not morally, socially and/or legally accepted.
Beyond the greater or lesser consequence between the “thinking” and the “acting”, in an enormous variablity that makes the analysis of human behavior very difficult, and at the same time much more interesting, it seems that the determinants that participate in decision making have always a very important instinctive and unconcious component. The influence of this unconcious factor seems to be bigger the more stressing, compelling or threatening a situation is.
Thus, in extreme situations as those seen in earthquakes, floods, fires, car accidents, muggings, etc, we can see the most instictively “pure” reactions, that can be expressed as reckless, heroic, altruistic, selfish, coward behaviors, among many others.
What is expressed in these cases are the most dominant tendencies (drives) of an individual, that are unique to him and different from those of others.
In this extreme situations, especially if total chaos is present, many people that in “normal” conditions would behave only in a socially accepted way, “sense” the opportunity to unleash all their hidden and contained drives, and behave in a way that is absolutely abusive and/or harmful to others.
At this point we are facing a subject of great importance: which tendencies and behaviors should be considered “normal, socially adequate, natural, healthy, pathological, irrational, unacceptable”, etc?
Which is the origin of these tendencies, and what amount of control has an individual to decide whether to follow or not his tendencies and instincts, when and how much to refrain if they are socially unaccepted and /or legally forbidden, and what is the degree of responsibility he has on his final conduct, are questions of great relevance.
Based on the concept of absolute free will, any person will be found fully responsible when his discernment is established as adequate by some specialists who examines him, and find no signs of insanity or other severe mental illness.
“He is capable to differentiate good from bad, he can be judged and punished”.
What would happen if from our analysis we begin to discover that humans are not “so free” to evaluate and decide about any given situation?
What would happen if in human knowledge it begins to be accepted that tendencies, motivations and instinctive drives, especially those that can be extremely intense and compelling, like sexual, religious, or referred to justice and human rights, or to gambling or to the use of drugs, among many others, have all a genetic and cerebral (organic) origin, over which people dont have absolute control, and that they can not always reject or avoid even if that is their rational will?
If this was the case, should we still consider our present educational and judicial systems, among many others, the most appropiate?
Could we continue assuming our present crime prevention and rehabilitation programs, and the protection schemes of potential victims as the most appropiate, through the view of this new interpretation of the human conduct?
As we continue advancing in the research of brain function as direct cause of human behavior, work that is only possible through the technology starting to be available in this 21st century, we must be prepared to start a whole new analysis and explanation of the motivations and determinants of human decisions.
The amount of information already available is enormous, and all the research carried out on these subjects by thousands of scientists throughout the world are opening new paths each day.
I expect that through all this advance human beings will be able to accomplish a more objective sense of reality, more free of myths, with better quality of life for all, including a better protection for both potential aggressors and potential victims.
Note: this is a translation of the original second article on this subject published by me in spanish, in july 2006, at http://conductahumana.blogspot.com
Jorge Lizama León.
