Selfish Impulse

Selfish Impulse

            Human beings have different personalities, traits, and beliefs. Besides, human beings have conflicting impulses. Psychologists research to explain various human behaviours. For instance, there have been mixed reactions, regarding the actions that an individual would adopt if they found themselves present in an area where a building catches fire. Whereas some people would rush into the building immediately in efforts to save people trapped therein, other people would stand far with no intention of getting close to the building. This situation is among the many issues that psychologists intend to explore. Further, the situation, as mentioned above, would create a question on whether human beings are intuitively selfish or cooperative. This paper thus will give a detailed explanation of how psychologists view selfish impulse.

The View of Psychologists

            The most prevailing thought and assumption over the years have been human nature is primarily negative. For instance, in the doctrine of original sin, Augustine proclaims that all individuals are born selfish and broken, which can be undone through divine intervention (Ward, 2012). Another example is Hobbes, who believes that human beings are savagely selfish, and salvation can only come through the social contract of civil law.  Primarily, traits such as warfare, domination, and selfishness have been among those assumed to be in human beings (Taylor, 2018). These traits suggest that individuals have strong natural impulses that lead them to compete for resources and accumulation for possessions and power.

Additionally, this assumption indicates that people only show kindness due to ulterior motives. People are also deemed to do good as a result of their efforts to successfully manage to exercise self-control and beat any form of natural brutality and selfishness (Taylor, 2018). For instance, evolutionary psychology explains how today’s human traits started during the prehistoric period, in what was known as the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA). During the EEA, there was vigorous competition, when life seemed to be a gladiatorial battle and the only principles that would govern survival advantage would take high preference (Taylor, 2018). Life, during this period, was so challenging to a point where the desire for wealth, power, and selfishness was the chosen means by evolution. There were intense conflict and competition between rival groups due to the survival dependence of people on accessibility to resources (animal groups, forests, and rivers), and this amounted to warfare and racism.

Alternatively, recent hunter-gatherer evidence suggests egalitarianism. This group does not accumulate their possessions nor property but feel morally obliged to share everything that they get from their activities (Taylor, 2018). Another behaviour from this group is that they do not allow any form of status differences to arise, primarily through ridiculing or putting down anyone who boasts and sharing credit. For instance, evidence from Kung Africa indicates that there is normally swapping of arrows before going to hunting fields (Taylor, 2018). In this case, if the arrow hits and kills an animal, the credit goes to the owner of the arrow, and not to the person who fires the arrow. Necessarily, men in the hunter-gatherer groups do not exercise power over their women. Women are the ones who choose marriage partners, kind of work that they want to handle when to work, and if the unfortunate case of a marriage breaks down, they have full custody rights over their offspring. Based on recent research on contemporary hunter groups, women and men have equal influence and status (Taylor, 2018).  Cases of sexual inequality have emerged with the growth of agriculture.

The evidence from the hunter-gatherer groups indicates that cruelty and selfishness are not natural traits for human beings. Therefore, it is questionable whether evolution has selected characteristics such as male domination, warfare, and racism (Taylor, 2018). The evidence from psychologists indicates that people who were perceived to be ruthless and selfish had minimal chances of surviving since they would be ostracized from the groups in which they belonged (Taylor, 2018). The traits that are evident from the hunter-gatherer groups is peace, altruism, egalitarianism, and cooperation, and these are termed to be natural to human beings.

Another exploration into the issue of selfish impulse is the use of the dual-process framework as a means of explaining decisions and behaviours. This framework suggests that reflection and intuition are the means through which every human behaviour and decisions take place (Ward, 2012). In this case, intuition is effortless and automatic, thus subjecting people to actions that happen with the absence of insight into the causing factors (Ward, 2012). Alternatively, reflection happens after conscious thought. This process involves pointing out every likely behaviour, weighing the benefits and costs of possible results, and ultimately rationally making decisions on the most appropriate actions to take. Intuition allows the process to happen quickly while reflection makes people operate slowly. The first behavioural tendency for all individual makes them act quickly, and this forms the essential human nature (Ward, 2012). Therefore, human beings are generally cooperative and should not be deemed as being selfish. Individuals who take time to reflect are considered to have more selfish impulses.

Conclusion

            As seen above, selfish impulses are not natural. Individuals would, in most cases, be kind and show goodness as the first action. The hunter-gatherer group is a clear indication that altruism, egalitarianism, cooperation, and peace are the natural traits in human beings. Additionally, cases of sexual inequality did not occur during the EEA period.  The growth of agriculture led to more defined gender roles and bore sexual inequality. Therefore, people develop selfish impulses as they grow and should never be regarded as natural habits.

References

Taylor, S. (2018). An Alternative View of Human Nature. Psychology Today. Retrieved from www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201807/alternative-view-human-nature

Ward, A. F. (2012). Scientists Probe Human Nature and Discover We are Good After All. Scientific American. Retrieved from www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/