In and Out

David Eagleman on the science of de- (and re-) humanisation

After watching these presentations lot of things became clearer in my mind. Many of the questions I have about how people treat each other seemed to have explanations now. Why do the strong pick on the weak? Why do people bully each other? Why are there bigots and hate mongers who are always finding ways to divide people up and label one group as good and another group as bad?

It all has to do with 'in-groups' and 'out-groups' and 'group-selection'

Now my bigger question is that if all this hate and ignorance has such a compelling explanation, why don't more people know about it or talk about it?



I would have thought that in general most of us could agree that bullying, bigotry and hate mongering are things we should reduce or eliminate in our society. If that were so why don't we do more to solve this problem? Oh, it's not that people don't complain about these problems, but what do we really tangibly to do solve the problem; or what can we tangibly do?

I have learned over time that the most important step in solving any problem is recognizing there is a problem. Maybe some people don't recognize there is a problem, or maybe some people don't want to solve this problem because it profits them in some way.

The next step in solving any problem is to define the problem. While I don't think David Eagleman has really defined the problem here, he certainly has defined the mechanisms that contribute to the problem. Maybe if more people watch these videos, collectively we will be able to define the problem.



Part of the problem is that we have a need to dehumanize other people, and once we do that we can no longer empathize with people, and now we are free to hurt them, or even delight in hurting them.

I guess when we compete for resources, or other things, we would rather not share with everyone, it is harder to compete with people we empathize with. The greater extent that we can dehumanize others, the more we are free to complete with them ruthlessly - after all, they are not human. In particular, when we dehumanize others we can extract more profit from them.



Fundamentally peer pressure is manipulation, whether intentional or not. Ultimately peer pressure is what keeps us in one group or another. Obedience is a measure how willing we are to do what we know or suspect is wrong. Pathologically, obedience is the peer pressure to conform to the group no matter how wrong, bad or evil the group is.



So it seems one of the most useful tools in re-humanizing society is education. Who profits when we increase funding and opportunities for education? Well that would be society as a whole I guess. So who profits when we cut funding and opportunities for education? That would be anyone who profits from de-humanizing society or a situation; I guess.



While I am a scientist, and I profoundly believe in science, science is not a person or a god; science is just a tool. No matter how much I can see how this science can be used to re-humanize our society, when I put on my evil genius hat, I can just as clearly see how this science can be used to further de-humanize society.

Now why would someone deliberately want to de-humanize society or a situation? The answer is simple: profit. If you can profit by de-humanizing others then it is easier to say "it's not personal, it's just business."

I guess where this leaves me is: are the decisions we make everyday for ourselves, for our community, for our county, or for our world human decisions or are they business decisions? Maybe I have finally defined the problem now.