Since the remote times of the initial steps in the transition from the hominid to the human, since those times in which language, spoken first, and written later, started to appear, and after that, during all our known history, human beings have thought, both in the mundane as in the scientific interpretation, that we have one brain, far superior than that of animals, be it that this brain is the product of a privileged course of evolution, or the final result of Gods creation.
If we support this last option, we assume that if God has been capable of creating not only man, but all great things of the universe and nature, it is logical to think that our brain, (the most powerful and advanced of all animal kingdom) is the best that God could create.
If we are more supportive of the evolutionary theories, we accept that it is the result of a harmonic development from a “primitive” model, to this “last” model, that has great intelectual capacities.
At the same time, we all can see that in our behavior we are extremely imperfect, both in our individual and collective conduct (wrong decisions, conflicts of many orders, great deals of suffering, profound feelings of guilt, crimes, wars, etc, that characterize today mans life, in the same way it has been through all known history).
Here we face a big inconsequence: why man, who has acquired the best brain in the animal kingdom, who has been able to modify nature, travel to outer space, developing an impressive advance in science and technology, at the same time, keeps behaving in a lot of senses as the most fierce predator, violent, jealous and “inhumane”?.
The most traditional and simplistic explanation to this has been to think that we have a “good” and a “bad” side, that we are at the same time sheep and wolves, and that this is why we are capable of the most altruistic sacrifices and at the same time of the most degrading atrocities.
About this, numerous philosophers, psychoanalysts, scientists, theologists, etc., have produced a great number of theories to explain this inconsequence.
But, what would happen if we change absolutely our approach to this problem, and put to the question what up to now was an obvious assumption, by not accepting as a fact that our brain is so “perfect”, maybe because of a “technical design or construction-development issue”?
A very suggestive possibility is that maybe in the human brain there is not one, but, simultaneously functioning, two brains, not perfectly integrated.
This is a lot more easily conceived from an evolutionary point of view. Since we share a great number of common characteristics with the rest of the animals, especially with the mammals, group to which we belong, it is only natural to accept that we have a brain that, at least, has all the capacities common to them.
We have, aside from that, the superior intelect that difference us, as humans are capable of things that any other animal simply can not do.
For a long time now, it has been generally accepted that, as evolution has advanced, on top of the original mammal brain, there has been a proggressive developement of a very important cortex layer that would be the responsible of the more abstract and elaborate thinking capacity, thus giving rise to language, spoken first and written afterwords.
Agriculture would be a concrete example of an activity that needed this extra capacity to be mastered, signaling yet another fact that differenciated humans from the rest of the mammals.
At the same time, it has been universally accepted that this evoluted brain has integrated harmonically all its capacities, both the primitive as the modern ones.
But, what if this was not really the case?
Can it be that our evolution was “imperfect”, in the sense that the coexistence of the primitive brain and newly acquired capacities have remained inharmonical, or even overtly conflictive?
This possibility is a lot more logical as we try to interpretate the behavioral reality, both as individuals and as social human beings throughout his history.
Thus we would have, at the same time, inside our brain, ways to “see and sense reality” that are complex and contradictory, and our actions can be the product of decisions that have been thoroughly meditated and planned, or of decisions that seem to “appear by themselves”, that lead us to unmeditated actions that we can profoundly regret when it is too late.
We can more easily understand this if we think of it as the consequence of our internal (intracerebral) conflict, and that when we act we are following the influence (orders) that come or from our primtive or from our modern brain, or even we can end taking strange decisions that are the product of the combined influence of both. Some other times our internal conflict is such that we simply are not capable of deciding any course of action.
With all the precedent considerations, we can move over from this basic set of concepts, over which we can start building this motivating “New Theory Of Human Behavior”.
We can start then, by imagining that the human brain integrates, functionally, 2 brains, that, to be in accordance with our modern world we can call “processors”, interlinked, but each from a different origin, and comprising different features and characteristics. Then, we can name them “Primary and Secondary” Processors.
The Primary Processor (Archaic) is related especially with the most primitive areas in the evolutive development of the brain, and is similar to that of animals.
Its main features are:
a. It relates especially with instincts and emotions, thus its expressions affect mainly the individuals “feelings”.
b. It influences powerfully our “interpretation” of the world (in a way that is unique to each of us), so that it generates the basis of our preferences, opinions, values and drives (tendencies). These drives can be of an infinit degree of intensity and orientation in each person, up to the point that in many cases they can be absolutely contrary to what is socially accepted, common weal and rationality.
c.Includes a very important and solid preprogramming, that is transmitted through generations, being capable of generating automatic responses in which there is no participation, or can even defy the rational judgement of the individual (Part that as we will see, corresponds to the Secondary Processor).
- Being linked to the most basic instincts, it is in charge of processing information and generating responses to situations that can be very dangerous and/or stressing (survival instinct, escape or attack when being threatened, sexual instinct and its orientation, triggering of love, hate, exaltation, shame, pleasure, pain, preconscious evaluation of situations and other persons, among a very large etcetera).
e. Is very automatized, and fast reacting, capable to respond in fractions of a second, and works mainly in the pre-concious or un-conciosus part of the individuals mind.
f. it has the capacity of exerting an intense influene over the Secondary Processor, up to the point of modulating its function. This influence is not clear and patent, given the pre-concious quality of the Primary Processor.
g. It relates to the “emotional intelligence” of the individual.
h. It often generates behaviors that can be partially or totally opposite to those suggested by the Secondary Processor, in relation to a determined circumstance.
- The Secondary Processor is related to the newer part of the brain from an evolutionary point of view, (Neo Cerebrum, Neo Cortex), and its functional field relates to the most elaborate and abstract mental processes. (The least developed part in animals). Its main features are:
a. I t is expressed mainly in the persons “thinking”.
b. It is not pre-programmed, rather, its a system thats starts “from scratch”, at birth, and develops incorporating information from the external and internal environment.
Although the Secondary Processor is capable of influencing the Primary Processor, this capacity is normally less powerful than the contrary.
- It relates mainly with the human conciousness, sustains the capacity of abstract thinking, rich imagination, concepts of space and time, and the analytic anticipation of future events, and the detailed analysis of past memories.d. It gives the individual the possibility of being “auto-concious”, and thus to realize his own existance.e. It is slower in its function compared to the primary processor.
f. Its function is at all times modulated by the primary processor.
g. It relates to what is understood as “Pure or Applied Intelligence”.
h. It can suggest courses of action partially or totally opposed to those generated “instictively” by the primary processor, situation that may cause intense conflict to the person.
The interaction of this 2 processors (brains), often opposed and conflictive, would be the base of human behavior, that in a lot of cases is very hard to understand.
The unique features of each of these processors would be dependant on the genetic information each of us has, and the anatomic, functional and behavioral expressions, that is also unique to each of us.
This appears to be true even in the case of siblings that have been raised in the same family environment, by the same parents. Thus, the environmental influence in the conformation of the personality of each person would be only partial, because that influence would be being exerted in each case (each person) over a unique and unrepeatable terrain.
We can say, at this point, that the precedent scheme can be useful as a base or vertebral column to advance elaborating our theory about the “real” determinants of human behavior.
Due to the fact that present technology is not capable to help us understand the intimate aspects of the brain function, we will have to wait for its progress, so that, in time, it can be possible to add more scientific foundations to this theoretical elaborations, that are based mainly in reflexive analysis and on the limited scientific data available today.
During the following years, all this rationally intended analysis will be either confirmed or proved wrong by the forthcoming scientific and technologic advance, that will keep growing in a faster pace each day.
Starting in the next chapter, besides applying this model to concrete situations of human life that may appear irrational and very difficult to understand, I will begin to add more elements to interpretate them, with the help of the related work of philosophers and scientists, old and contemporary, whose ideas I have been devoted to review during the last year, and will continue to do in the future.
Jorge Lizama León, Santiago, april 2011
(originally published in spanish in december, 2007).
