Skip to content

Elephant in the brain vs good inside

the-elephant-in-the-brain VS good-inside

Claude.ai

The view that humans are fundamentally "good inside" is often associated with humanistic psychology and more optimistic perspectives on human nature. Dr. Becky Kennedy, in her work "Good Inside," generally promotes the idea that children (and by extension, people) have an innate capacity for goodness. This perspective emphasizes that negative behaviors often stem from unmet needs or underdeveloped skills rather than inherent selfishness or malice.

On the other hand, "The Elephant in the Brain" by Kevin Simler and Robin Hanson presents a more cynical view of human nature. Their work draws on evolutionary psychology and behavioral economics to argue that much of human behavior is driven by unconscious, self-serving motives. They suggest that we often deceive ourselves about our true motivations, which are frequently more selfish than we'd like to admit.

From a scientific standpoint, there's evidence supporting aspects of both perspectives:

  1. Prosocial behavior: Studies have shown that even very young children exhibit altruistic behaviors, suggesting an innate capacity for goodness. For example, research by Warneken and Tomasello (2006) demonstrated that 18-month-old infants would spontaneously help adults with tasks, even without prompting or reward.
  2. Evolutionary advantages of cooperation: Research in evolutionary biology and game theory has shown that cooperative behaviors can be evolutionarily advantageous, supporting the idea that humans may have evolved to be "good" in certain contexts (Nowak, 2006).
  3. Self-serving biases: Numerous psychological studies have demonstrated various cognitive biases that lead people to view themselves more favorably than is objectively warranted, aligning with the "Elephant in the Brain" perspective (Sedikides & Gregg, 2008).
  4. Neurobiological basis of empathy: Neuroscience research has identified brain structures and processes involved in empathy, suggesting a biological basis for prosocial behavior (Singer & Lamm, 2009).
  5. Cultural influences: Anthropological studies have shown significant variations in prosocial behavior across cultures, indicating that both nature and nurture play roles in shaping human behavior (Henrich et al., 2005).

In conclusion, the scientific evidence suggests a nuanced view: humans seem to have capacities for both selfishness and altruism, with various factors including genetics, upbringing, culture, and immediate context influencing which tendencies manifest. The truth likely lies somewhere between the optimistic "good inside" view and the more cynical perspective of unconscious self-interest.

Copilot answer validation:

This is a fascinating debate, and both perspectives have compelling arguments supported by scientific evidence. Let’s break down the key points from each view and see how they stack up.

Good Inside by Becky Kennedy

Dr. Becky Kennedy’s perspective is rooted in humanistic psychology, which emphasizes the inherent goodness and potential in people. Here are some key points:

  1. Innate Goodness: Kennedy argues that children, and by extension all people, have an innate capacity for goodness. Negative behaviors are often seen as a result of unmet needs or underdeveloped skills rather than inherent selfishness1.
  2. Prosocial Behavior in Children: Studies have shown that even very young children exhibit altruistic behaviors. For example, research by Warneken and Tomasello (2006) demonstrated that 18-month-old infants would spontaneously help adults with tasks, even without prompting or reward2.
  3. Neurobiological Basis of Empathy: Neuroscience research has identified brain structures and processes involved in empathy, suggesting a biological basis for prosocial behavior3.

The Elephant in the Brain by Kevin Simler and Robin Hanson

Simler and Hanson’s view is more cynical, drawing on evolutionary psychology and behavioral economics to argue that much of human behavior is driven by unconscious, self-serving motives. Key points include:

  1. Self-Serving Biases: Numerous psychological studies have demonstrated various cognitive biases that lead people to view themselves more favorably than is objectively warranted4.
  2. Evolutionary Psychology: This perspective suggests that many behaviors that appear altruistic are actually driven by self-interest, as they have evolved to enhance survival and reproductive success5.
  3. Cultural Influences: Anthropological studies show significant variations in prosocial behavior across cultures, indicating that both nature and nurture play roles in shaping human behavior6.

Scientific Evidence and Conclusion

From a scientific standpoint, evidence supports aspects of both perspectives:

In conclusion, the scientific evidence suggests a nuanced view: humans have capacities for both selfishness and altruism, with various factors including genetics, upbringing, culture, and immediate context influencing which tendencies manifest. The truth likely lies somewhere between the optimistic “good inside” view and the more cynical perspective of unconscious self-interest.

Which perspective resonates more with you, or do you find yourself somewhere in between?

1: 2: Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees_Science_, 311(5765), 1301-1303. 3: Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy_Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences_, 1156(1), 81-96. 4: Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2008). Self-enhancement: Theory and research_Psychological Bulletin_, 134(1), 1-31. 5: Simler, K., & Hanson, R. (2018). The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life. Oxford University Press. 6: Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. 7: Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560-1563.