All people are the same but different. Genes are to blame for everything: why are all people the same, but states are so different

From an evolutionary standpoint, 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 opinion on this paradox from the bestselling book An Inconvenient Legacy. Genes, Races and the History of Humankind, translated by Alpina Non-Fiction Publishing House.

The main argument is this: these differences do not grow out of some huge difference between individual members 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 have developed in each race depending on geographical and historical conditions. These variations set the framework for the emergence of social institutions that differ significantly in their nature. As a result of these institutions - mostly cultural phenomena based on the foundation of genetically determined social behavior - the societies of the West and East Asia are so different from each other, tribal societies are so different from 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, this is just a guess. No one can currently say what part of genetics and culture underlies the differences between human societies, and the assertion that evolution plays no role is just a hypothesis.

Secondly, the position "it's only culture" was formulated mainly by the anthropologist Franz Boas to contrast it with the racist one; this is commendable from the point of view of motives, but in science there is no place for political ideology, whatever its persuasion. In addition, Boas wrote his work at a time when it was not known that human evolution continued until the recent past.

Third, the "it's only culture" hypothesis does not satisfactorily explain why the differences between human societies are so deeply rooted. If the differences between tribal society and the modern state were purely cultural, it would be fairly easy to modernize tribal societies by adopting Western institutions. The American experience with Haiti, Iraq and Afghanistan by and large 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.

Fourth, the assumption "it's just a culture" is in dire need of adequate processing and adjustment. His followers failed to update these ideas to include a new discovery: human evolution continued until the recent past, was extensive and regional in nature. According to their hypothesis, contrary to the data accumulated over the past 30 years, the mind is a blank slate, formed from birth without any influence of genetically determined behavior. At the same time, the importance of social behavior, as 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 have remained 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, with the exception of slight differences in social behavior. These differences, though barely perceptible at the level of the individual, add up and form societies that are very different from each other in their qualities.

The idea of ​​[this] book suggests that, on the contrary, there is a genetic component to human social behavior; this component, which is 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 the difference in social institutions that prevail in large human populations.

Like the "it's only culture" position, this idea has not yet been proven, but relies on a number of assumptions that seem reasonable in the light of recent knowledge.

First, the social structures of primates, including humans, are based on genetically determined behavior. Chimpanzees have inherited a genetic pattern for the functioning of their characteristic societies from an ancestor that is common to humans and chimpanzees. This ancestor passed on the same model of the human branch, which subsequently evolved to maintain features specific to the social structure of humans, from about 1.7 million years ago to the advent of hunter-gatherer groups and tribes. It is difficult to understand why humans, a highly social species, should have lost the genetic basis of 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 into ranging in size from a maximum of 150 people in a hunter-gatherer group to huge cities with tens of millions of inhabitants. It should be noted that this transformation had to develop in each race independently, since it took place 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 certain that institutions must depend on them. This hypothesis is supported by such authoritative scientists as economist Douglas Northey, political scientist Francis Fukuyama: they both believe that institutions are based on the genetics of human behavior.

The third assumption: the evolution of social behavior has continued in the last 50,000 years and in 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 settled life. The genomic evidence that human evolution proceeded in the recent past was extensive 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 this: developed social behavior can actually be observed in various modern populations. Behavioral changes historically proven in the English population over the 600 years leading up to the Industrial Revolution include a reduction in violence and an increase in literacy, a propensity to work and accumulate. Similar evolutionary changes seem to have taken place in other agrarian populations in Europe and East Asia before they entered the era of 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 is related to the fact that significant differences exist between human societies, and not between their individual representatives. Human nature throughout the world is generally the same, with the exception of slight differences in social behavior. These differences, though barely perceptible 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 building of the first modern state, the rise of the West and the decline of the Islamic world and China, and the economic inequality that has emerged in recent centuries.

The assertion that evolution has played a 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 tendencies that can only guide the psyche in one way or another. But if all individuals in a society have the same inclination, however slight, for example, toward a greater or lesser level of social trust, then that society will have this tendency and will be different from societies in which there is no such inclination.

Once, in an essay, my student wrote: “The only thing people have in common is that they are all different.” And indeed it is. We are endowed with different shades of eyes, skin, we speak different languages, we have different mental abilities. We treat the same things differently, we even laugh and cry differently. Prejudices and stereotypes about people who are somehow different from many are very common not only in our society, but throughout the world. This perception and attitude causes suffering. The fairness of any society is measured by how it treats the most vulnerable groups of people. It is very important to develop the ability to imagine yourself in their position.
All people, and adolescents in particular, need to learn to accept themselves and others as they are.
Differences need respect and care, and we often wittingly or unwittingly try to persuade a person to think the way we do, to perceive the world the way we see it. How many irresolvable conflicts flare up because of our inability to appreciate the right of everyone to be different from others.
It is important to learn to live in harmony with others. Only then will anyone be comfortable. The atmosphere that the teacher creates in the classroom should be warm, inviting and supportive for each student. Only in such an environment will the child behave naturally, perceive himself as he really is.
A game. Take a piece of paper and pin it to your classmate's back. Let everyone try to write with a pencil something pleasant for his friend. All inscriptions must be kind and anonymous. For example: “Thank you for being so helpful and funny.” Then everyone will take a piece of paper off their back and read it.

most special
For 6-9 year olds, use the word "special", and for older children - "unique". For older children, focus on the discussion.
Goals. To teach children to be aware of their own uniqueness and be proud of it, to respect the uniqueness of others; create an atmosphere of openness and trust.

Lesson progress
Ask participants to think of something that makes them different from everyone else. One says: "I can weave baskets." If no one else can say "Me too", he gets one point, if someone else also has the same ability, he sits next to someone who has the same passion.
Discussion: is it good to be unique? Is every person unique? What prevents us from being unique?

Goats and wolves
Objectives: to explore the reasons why people cause or do not inspire trust; Discuss feelings of fear and security. Here you will need signs with the inscriptions: “goat”, “goat”, “wolf”.
Participants pull these tablets out of the box without showing each other. One must be asked to retell the tale of the seven kids.
In one corner of the room, the “goats” sit in a tight circle. This is their house. The rest of the participants gather in another corner. Each of them in turn approaches the "house" and tries to convince the "goats" that he is a "goat". If they are convinced, they will let the "wolf" into the house. He "eats" one "kid" and is out of the game. The goal of the "goats" is to remain safe and sound. The goal of the "goats" and "wolves" is to get into the house.
This game will allow participants to begin to communicate with each other more confidentially and try out different roles. It will be interesting to discuss:
How did the goats feel?
What did they base their decision on?
Why are they sometimes wrong?
Are our impressions of people often wrong?
How did the "goats" feel when they were mistaken for "wolves"?
How did they try to convince the "goats"?
Is it nice to be "wolves"?
Has it ever happened that someone in life turned out to be a “wolf” against their will?

Natalia GUDOSHNIKOVA, civics teacher, Saransk

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 have developed. To date, there are about 50 definitions of the concept of personality.

Personality is a stable system of socially significant features that characterize an individual as a member of a particular society.

The most modern approach considers man as a biopsychosocial system. And, by and large, the totality of these three factors: biological, psychological and social is personality.

The biological factor is external signs: the color of the eyes, and the height, and the shape of the nails; internal signs: sympathetic or parasympathetic type of the autonomic nervous system, features of blood circulation, biorhythms, in a word: the biological factor is all 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 the social factor. What is meant by this social factor?

The social factor is, in principle, the entire experience of communication and interaction with other people and with the outside world as a whole. Those. it is essentially the whole life experience of a person.

What do you think: from what moment does the formation of personality begin?

I don’t remember who said it, but it’s very accurate: “You are born an individual, you become a person, and you defend your individuality.”

People are born very similar. Of course, babies are different because each has its own individual set of biological as well as psychological traits 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 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 is multiplied, because everyone has their own life experience. It is impossible to plan, calculate, because too many random phenomena and circumstances daily and every minute interfere, are built into the life of every person. 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 is seriously ill. 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. Illness is an event that changes the biological factor - during the period of illness, some part of his health was lost, the psychological factor also changed, because during the illness the state of all mental functions and memory, attention, and thinking change - in any case, the content of thinking - now a person thinks about the disease and how to recover from it. And the disease also affects the social factor. The surrounding people treat a sick person differently than a healthy one. If the disease is short, then its influence will be short and insignificant, and if it is a serious and long illness. For example, a child is 7 years old and it is 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. And if a serious illness 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, he will also communicate with authoritative adults, but not with teachers, but with representatives of the medical professions. In addition, his relationship with those close to him will also change. Moreover, sometimes these changes in relations 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 makes each person unique 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, a person has not changed much. Z. Freud, in the course of creating his psychoanalytic theory, deduced the general principle of the psychological structure of a person - the principle of absolute hedonism, which means that a person constantly strives to get pleasure. Based on this principle, the main need of a person and the main motivation for all his actions is to receive pleasure. Many do not agree with this formulation and are ready to argue. Subsequently, this principle was finalized, slightly modified and was called the principle of relative hedonism, which sounds like this: a person seeks to have fun and live without conflicts. Those. a person in his desire to get 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 watch a small child during the day, it becomes obvious that all his thoughts, interests and actions are aimed specifically at getting pleasure and restoring a state of inner comfort. Gradually, the child is included in the process of socialization, and the social factor 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. To be happy and to live without conflicts is the universal guarantee of the mental health of every person - every person.

Name: Nikita

This is not the first time I am writing here under different names, since I consider all previous stories to be nonsense. I could write where there are more people who are similar in thinking, but only adequate people sit here. I study at school. I don't need advice "Go in for sports", "Prove to everyone that you have positive qualities", etc. I don’t want to humiliate myself in front of someone and prove nothing, and it’s disgusting to somehow change for the sake of being useful to someone. I want to know if there is at least one person in this world who can accept me with my shortcomings described below. I am a sociophobe and a melancholic. Yes, it’s hard for me to contact people, go to crowded places, but that’s not even the problem. I can go to great lengths if there are people for whom this can be done. The problem is precisely in my temperament, no one can bear it. I always misunderstand everything (I perceive not so spoken and unsaid words of relatives as an insult). Otherwise I can't. If I don’t make a scandal, I will feel very bad, it will seem to me that the person is opposed to me. Of course, I also have positive qualities. I do not like to praise myself, but still I will say that I am not like hundreds of thousands of identical people. I always do the right thing (this quality is very strongly developed in me to such an extent that they even consider me boring). I do not discuss the appearance of other people, moreover, I do not ridicule, do not insult, do not drink, do not smoke, do not violate various laws and rules, do not tell other people's secrets, and I will remain that way forever. It is a pity that these qualities are not valued in the modern world, and such people probably do not exist. But I have a lot of negative qualities: I study poorly, and in general I hardly understand something, I am a boring interlocutor, notorious, depressive, I can rarely help with solving other people's problems (sometimes I don’t even know what to answer) and a lot of things more. In other words, you would not wish such a friend to an enemy. I have two exes, both of whom I loved unrequitedly. The first had no desire to communicate with me at all, the second did not even see in reality. Communicated only on the network and 3 times on the phone, in addition, she had a boyfriend. Despite all this, we became very good friends, she was the only one who accepted me for who I am. Yes, and she was at that time the same as me. We even thought the same way. But with the guy they were very different, they quarreled every day. She praised him for being good, but after a few months I realized that he was just like most people. However, I often quarreled with her. Most of the time it was my fault. Either I’m jealous of her other friends, then I’m offended when she doesn’t write first for a long time, then I’m offended that she doesn’t tell something, then she says something wrong and I don’t understand it. So we were friends for 5 months. But then she began to change: either she subscribes to some groups with stupid jokes, or she adds videos with some gopniks. For me, such things are of great importance, and a decent girl would not add such nonsense. Then she began to tell me very rarely something. I endured, thought some problems, then broke down, expressed everything that bothered me, she spoke in response that she now tells her problems to others, because they do not suit the scene. She always asked me not to do something - I listened, I asked - she listened, but now she decided to exchange me for those who are better, although before she always claimed that I was a good friend. We spoke out, I was tired of all this and I wanted to leave her. Truth finally asked a couple of questions, does she want me to leave. She replied that she didn't want to. Still, I was determined to leave and left her. It didn’t even hurt me, because during all this time she constantly hurt. Then my conscience began to choke me. Why leave a person if he does not want to. I returned, then she herself admitted that she had become different, her life had changed so much. But people don't just change. My main version was that friends and a boyfriend made her like that. But the main thing is that she replied that she wants to become the same as before. Therefore, I again agreed to friendship, we again began to communicate normally, but the next day I again misunderstood her words and we quarreled again. Then she started insulting me in general, she said that she was happy without me, because no one makes scenes, then she even sent me. I broke down again and removed it from everywhere. My former friends also left me because I was not like them. I always sit at home, I have nothing to do on the street, and I hate to be in the company of people who think so, in order to harm someone and have fun.