Simler, Kevin, and Robin Hanson. 2018. The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
For the sake of retaining important arguments of this book, I have written a partial summary of The Elephant in the Brain. This is not a comprehensive book review. Significant arguments and large portions of the book are neglected. Rather than properly summarizing the book, I wanted to highlight parts of the book that I found especially striking.
The Elephant in the Brain by Simler and Hanson is a book about human nature. The authors of the book nicely state their thesis in the introduction: “We, human beings are a species that’s not only capable of acting on hidden motives—we’re designed to do it” (4). The authors hold that through the process of evolution that humans—highly complex, intelligent, and extremely social beings—have developed a set of behaviors of which we are unaware because it is socially advantageous for us to be unaware of them. Self-deception is part of our brain’s evolutionary strategy so that we can better deceive others. Deception is a hidden and explicit part of our conscious life. For example, a little reflection, what we term “white lies” is a euphemism for convenient deception: since people are judging us at all times, and we want people to like and trust us, people emphasize the good parts of themselves and downplay the negative parts. While we speak about some of our behaviors as if we are being generous or altruistic, we are in fact acting in our self-interest. What is surprising is that we do this unconsciously as well.
Titled The Elephant in the Brain, the book is referring to the expression of the unspoken but obvious issue confronting people: our self-centeredness/selfishness. The book follows recent psychology and evolutionary psychology studies. This work is a great complement to the Moral Animal by Robert Wright, another book about our evolutionary heritage. Both books nakedly expose humans as driven and dominated by base motives (sex, domination, status, and the need for social bonds in friends/alliances). Evolutionary psychology asserts that we are driven to bond, compete, and mate in a complex web of social interactions, and this explains much of human behavior—in fact it determines a significant amount of it. One of the main takeaways from this book is that we think and feel that we are autonomous, but really, we are subject to hidden drives and repeating behavioral patterns. It rejects the blank slate theory of human nature without bothering to say so—it is just too evidently proven false to those working in evolutionary psychology. There is such a thing as human nature shared across the species and all cultures.
The book starts by setting the basic assumptions: we are species that evolved from small primate bands of 20 to 50 people over many millennia. Human nature is a product to a process that remains in the dark abyss of the past. With evolution as a theoretical tool of analysis, psychologists hope to unearth and explain many of our behaviors. We can see reflections of ourselves in other primates who have shared a similar evolutionary past, such as chimpanzees—our closest relatives. For example, social grooming is major element of human behavior, just like chimps. We talk, laugh, and attend social events to fill a deep need inside of us. Similarly, chimpanzees spend their time grooming their allies/friends as a form social bonding (chimps pick bugs out of each other’s hair). We spend our time talking to one another in endless loops. Both acts serve as a way of social bonding and alliance forming that satisfies a deep urge within us. We need to talk to others and are compelled to do so. Notably, higher-ranked individuals receive more grooming than lower-ranked individuals. Those who do more grooming, have greater survivability and a better chance to spread their genes. Next time you are sitting around a cafeteria table, notice how much attention and conversation the highest status individual receives…
First and foremost, the competition for mates is a kind of foundation of our common human nature that is shared across all cultures. Like chimpanzees that fight and strut around in front of their peers, much of our behavior fits into a social web of interactions. Like chimps, a lot of energy and time is spent competing for “prestige status” (23). Our evolutionary forbears competed for scarce resources and they wanted four things: “food, sex, territory, social status” (30). Humans acquire these resources by cunning, cleverness, and display. Critics will rightfully note that in evolutionary psychology, everything boils down to survival and sex. Humans are all too animal underneath our dynamic and complex cultural displays. We unconsciously compete for these resources in social groups—money, status, and career success being the most important. Why are we so ambitious? Why do billionaires always need more? A kind of instinct for social status drives them on. Further, social competition provides an explanation of why our brains developed and became as large and complex as they did. We need to keep track of everyone’s hidden and deceptive motives to help ourselves gain a social advantage. Much of what we and like do is about self-promotion. While we think we are enjoying the pleasure of conversation, we are in fact engaging in constant social competition and self-promotion. Indeed, most of human conversation is spent gossiping about one another. Dunbar showed in Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language (1998) that 65% of human conversation is gossip. The great merit of gossip is that helps humans keep track of who is honest and who is cheating—who we can trust. Further, gossip causes people to protect their reputations so that their social status is not damaged by other people. Gossip is also about coalition building and bonding. Considering how much negative gossip is exchanged between people, it is clear to me that much of gossip is about demoting the status of someone else, promoting oneself, while reinforcing the alliance with whom one is gossiping.
We also unconsciously transmit social information through two significant signals to others: domination and prestige. We unconsciously seek prestige or domination. Domination, although reduced through the power of socialization and law, is still real in social environments where a person acts to intimidate or overwhelm a competitor (the threat of physical violence, wit, mockery, intellectual superiority, controlling all the space of conversation…etc.). Prestige, the much more civilized signaling, can take several forms such as beauty (everybody wants to be friends with the beautiful people), wealth, athletic ability (why do we like games so much!), generosity, and being fun and humorous, artistic, kind, intelligent, etc. I do not know how many times I have inserted my education, job, or travel experiences into conversations with people I just met that ultimately are a kind of strutting and display about my social status.
These signals have two ends: assessing the fitness of potential mates and forming social coalitions with others. We are constantly judging and being judged (just try to stop judging or saying negative things about others for a day). As social animals we assess the assets and value of others in microseconds by the signals that others display to us. When we form a friendship, really what we have done is form a kind of political alliance, and as our friends become friends, we have formed a coalition. These coalitions help us subvert and put pressure on dominance hierarchies.
One of the shocking claims by Simler and Hanson is that we are hardwired to be cheaters and manipulators, but since manipulation and cheating are obviously one of the negative signals that people report in gossip, people have to be exceptional manipulators and cheaters. In fact, the gain from cheating in evolutionary terms is so useful that the brain has evolved for us to be unaware of the fact that we are manipulating others. Cheaters and manipulators are in an arms race with the brain’s powers of social detection. This is most significantly seen in the human ability to violate social norms (especially when no one will know about it) and then painlessly providing a convenient rational justification.
Since we have an inherent tendency of cheating and manipulation, Simler and Hanson paint an unflattering image of humanity:
“So we brag and boast, shirk and slack off, gossip and badmouth people behind their backs. We undermine our supposed teammates, suck up to our bosses, ogle and flirt inappropriately, play politics, and manipulate others for our own ends. In short, we’re selfish. Not irredeemably selfish, just slightly more than our highest standards of behavior demand” (70).
We routinely act uncharitably all the while deceiving ourselves into thinking how fair and just we are. Interestingly, there have been several theories postulated as to why we do this. Freud argued that self-deception was an inbuilt coping mechanism. Otto Fenichel argued in a similar vein that self-deception was to preserve our self-esteem. The New School, as presented by Simler and Hanson, argues that self-deception is to heighten our powers of manipulation in the social competition for prestige and status. Because lying is hard to pull off, those who engage in self-deception are much better at providing believable signals to others. Studies have shown that people under controlled conditions fail to recognize their baser motives and rather provide social congenial reasons as to why they like one thing over another. I can only imagine that this is perhaps why so many violent people are able to obtain relationships with others—they believe themselves that they are not actually a violent, immoral person. The brain determines the object of a person’s desires, beyond the control of the individual, and the mind constructs a social convenient and acceptable reason to understand why it desires the object (102). Bias, prejudice, and selfishness can all be conveniently rationalized and excused.
Interestingly, there are detectable signs that betray our powers of manipulation.
HOW BODY LANGUAGE BETRAYS US
We are especially unconscious of our body language, which provides clues to the actual inner turmoil of our social interactions. When we are not interested or unsupportive, we often look away, but when we are supportive and in agreement, we look at the person and even give positive gestures such as nods. When we are supportive, our posture is open and inviting, but if we are in not supportive, we are closed and appear directed elsewhere. If we are truly supportive, we often mirror the person with whom we agree. Further, we use physical contact with pats, hugs, kisses, cuddles, handshakes, etc. I have read elsewhere that American men actually touch each other more often than woman because of handshakes and high-fives. Men have built a whole culture of physically touching one another to support and bond with one another.
LAUGHTER
Ever notice that someone that does not like you will not laugh at your jokes, while your partner, mother, or friends somehow find you remarkably funny? This is an obvious signal of social support. Laughter is often an involuntary behavior. In practice, laughter is a tool used for social networking. It allows us to flirt, bond with people, mock our enemies and mark out lines in our social groups of who and what is a target of derision. Mockery also signals who we are closest to because, when face to face, we can only comfortably mock and poke fun at friends—for anybody else, mocking them is deeply insulting and a sign of rejection. People who do not know us, should not be mocking us. Finally, laughter allows people to explore topics that are taboo or forbidden. If we are joking about a subject, no one is sure what the person who made the joke really thinks about the subject. Socially disapproved ideas can be denied. We can hide behind humor as we talk about uncomfortable, taboo subjects while limiting the social cost.
CONVERSATION
Conversation is one of the great pleasures of life; the reasons for this, however, are quite base. Talking is the most significant and common form of social bonding. Intuitively it seems like we use conversation to share information, but this is not really true. If it were, we would spend more time asking questions and listening to others—which we do not really do. We talk so others can listen to us and we are compelled/excited to hear the sound of our own voice. Indeed, I would say it is a relief and gratifying to express our own opinions—something egotistical and narcissistic is driving us and it gives us great pleasure when we finally get to share our thoughts. I would confess that when I am filled with a response, it is increasingly difficult to listen. Really, we are constantly showing off. We just want our own turn to talk to show off what we can do. Unconsciously, we are signaling our sexual/social fitness. The evolutionary driver for how we speak is to recruit potential mates and allies. Conversation appears as if it is for information sharing, but really the subtext suggest that is a way for us to show off our own wit, status, and intelligence as signals of domination and prestige. Conversation is a contest to show the breadth of knowledge we have—the best conversationalists always have something insightful to say on any subject. Listeners will come to understand how impressive a tool-kit of knowledge the speaker has and will want to mate with this person or be their ally (friend). Ultimately, we seek prestige and recognition for our egotistical selves—always trying to increase our position and status. The clear lesson for me, assuming all this is true, is to be better at listening to others and learning from them because it is actually very difficult.
EDUCATION
Lastly, I found many of the claims and observations about education very striking and surprising. Simler and Hanson argue that school is really a time for sorting out people, some will go to the assembly line and others will get to be the managers. They claim that we are not at school for actual knowledge retention. As a teacher, I feel this is an effect of education, but I find it laregely overstated. In my opinion, the student’s awareness grows whether they remember everything or not. Simler and Hanson argue it is less important that student’s remember everything than that they show they are better than their peers. Consciously we say it is about learning, but unconsciously we want to create a hierarchy of students. Education focuses more on providing us a credential than teaching us the most productively, claim Simler and Hanson. School demonstrates how well we perform in a directed and controlled environment that focuses on merit and talent. This allows later employers and prestigious schools to continue to find bright students with the correct work ethic of success. More than that, education is about state building and creating a loyal and productive labor force. It is the civilizing force of society. It is critical for civic society that everyone buy into the social program. So it is also a massive socialization project. The people who are best at school are better at doing what they are told. Of course the payoff is as significant for the individual as for the society: through education civilization reduces violence and cultivates politeness, etiquette, and good manners. Of course, historians familiar with the history of nationalism know this. It is the project of the state to lift people above the irrational rabble and create conformed, conscientious, enlightened citizens/subjects.
If we take the claims of this research seriously, we cannot escape our narcissistic and egotistical urges, but being aware of our base motives might make us more humble, more generous to people we are not bonded with, better listeners, and less deceptive.
For more on this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4lEvvY1r5U
and
Skeptic's Line 