↖ Homepage of the site 'What to do with your life?'

What is a human being?

Our behaviors are linked to three major phenomena:

•	Our genetic heritage or instinct, linked to the evolution of species as well as our individual genetic predispositions.

•	Culture or social organization, meaning know-how, social rules, and beliefs, transmitted from generation to generation, which are not necessarily universal.

•	Our personal emotional history.

Our genetic heritage

Our collective behavioral genetic heritage comprises the following two major elements: social ambition and cognitive dissonance.

Social ambition, it is the desire we have to climb the social hierarchy. It engenders an excessive appetite for the game of alliances, which we will call generalized nepotism. It leads to a high level of social violence, in the form of permanent and multiple conflicts of the 'us versus them' type.

The resolution of cognitive dissonanceis our capacity to reconcile contradictory facts irrationally. It progressively leads us to lie to ourselves, and to harm others in good conscience. It is likely the consequence of the dual nature of the human mind.

Why is it important to know what a human being is from a scientific point of view, and not as the result of simple introspection?

If we want to address the topic of 'how to organize collective functioning well', common sense dictates we start by clearly defining our subject, that is, what a human being is.

Marx carried out a very rigorous analysis of the functioning of capitalism. It is the fact of not having correctly defined what a human being is that led him to draw only a naive solution, which caused many misfortunes.
To Marx's credit, in his time, sociological scientific data were not available, and even today all philosophers allow themselves the same nonchalance: starting from a vision of humanity derived from simple introspection or personal experience, and deducing from it a supposed optimum collective organization.

Consequences of human nature at the level of social organization

The natural product of a social organization based on our collective genetic heritage is social violence and the normative pressure exerted on individuals.

For a social organization to be satisfactory, it must take this genetic heritage into account, and limit its negative consequences. In particular, the book From Capital to Reason demonstrates that framing the decision-making process is a necessary condition for building a satisfactory social organization. This requires focusing on how we decide, as opposed to our democratic organizations which focus on who decides.

Similarly, a social organization that falls into either of the following two pitfalls cannot be satisfactory:

•	Appealing to more morality, meaning a human being liberated from its genetic heritage.

•	Justifying social violence by: it is natural, in the order of things, that the strong crush the weak. The injunction to adaptation is a version that at first glance may seem more morally acceptable, but in essence amounts to the same thing: the justification of the purely selfish use of gifts.

Refer to the questions 'What are the consequences of social ambition?' and 'What is cognitive dissonance?'. Then, refer to the question 'What is the major discovery of the book From Capital to Reason ?'.

Transcending our genetic heritage through culture: problem solving

The main contribution at the cultural level, which allows us to transcend behaviors dictated by our genetics, is the problem-solving method. It consists of performing reasoning in four phases:
1. Recognize the problem
2. Conduct a serious analysis.
3. Develop a solution, often partial.
4. Implement it.
Only humans are capable of this, especially because language is a prerequisite for transmitting this technique, which requires long learning.

The game of alliances is the natural functioning arising from our genetic heritage, and leads to significant social violence. The problem-solving method allows us to transcend it, both at the family level and at the level of society in general. This problem-solving method thus constitutes probably the optimum functioning of a human brain, which is unfortunately rarely achieved, for two reasons: either one of the steps is rushed, or a belief takes the place of a fact and leads to an ideological final solution.

However, two-person problem solving that works effectively is the source of social well-being from the first to the last day of our lives. Feelings are only consequences and indicators of this, on which it is illusory to try to act.

We could therefore live in a much more satisfactory society, in terms of both social cohesion and reduced social violence, provided we ensure that every person, from the end of their studies, is trained in two-person problem solving, and that the social organization of society favors this problem solving. Such a change is, however, of such cultural importance as the adoption of democracy was. This site is here to help you take the first steps on this liberating mental path.

The change linked to the modern scientific method

The modern scientific method, invented in the 17th century, allows the establishment of a corpus of solid knowledge, which facilitates the analysis phase, and especially considerably increases the possible solutions. However, to enable effective problem solving, it requires that individuals be able to distinguish a firmly established scientific fact from a merely plausible proposition.

Yet, at the beginning of the 21st century, a majority of individuals, including those who have undertaken long studies, continue to hold absurd reasoning of the type: you think this - a scientifically established fact -, I think something else - a merely plausible proposition or a belief -, and our opinions are equal, because otherwise you claim superiority over me, so I consider you intolerant and I dismiss your proposal for this reason. sic. Such reasoning is the product of a representation deeply rooted in the majority of individuals that social status trumps facts.

Moreover, through their education, the majority of humans continue to simply learn to adopt a socially acceptable behavior, or more personal but stereotyped, in each situation of life. This happens at the expense of the consideration of facts related to each particular situation. But above all, this greatly limits the ability of adult individuals to progress. Indeed, in a given situation, an individual tends to exchange on a certain mode, on a certain content fixed in advance, and rejects any other type of exchange they will a priori judge as inappropriate, because not conforming to what their education or personal experience dictates in such circumstances.

The illusion of altruism, empathy, and compassion

One could argue that mutual aid, stemming from altruism, empathy, or compassion, are fundamental and positive elements of human nature, and that it suffices to cultivate them to make social organization more satisfactory. Unfortunately, in practice, this does not work, due to the power of beliefs and cognitive dissonance. The same individual tends to be altruistic regarding elements that are secondary to them, to maintain a good image of themselves, and selfish regarding what ensures the core of their social position, without even realizing it, due to the self-deception produced by beliefs and cognitive dissonance.

Methodology

In this document, we have chosen 'problem solving' as the only element of human nature to retain at the cultural level. This may seem arbitrary; why not have chosen, for example, the arts?
This choice is an axiom, in the mathematical sense of the term. We posit a second on this site, at the level of the question 'What is the purpose of life?' by answering 'collective happiness'. As in mathematics, the solidity of an axiom does not rest on the fact that it is proven, but on the fact that it allows long developments without contradiction.

Synthesis

(1) Social ambition pushes the individual to use rhetoric, which belongs more to the cognitive-affective system (producing an immediate effect that relies more on the emotions and beliefs of the interlocutors than on their reason) than to rational reasoning (consideration of the totality of facts).

(2) The resolution of cognitive dissonance through beliefs and self-deception leads to the progressive reinforcement of the use of the cognitive-affective system at the expense of rational reasoning.

(3) Motivation is the place where the freedom of the individual is exercised, which must however remain limited by respect for facts. In other words, regarding motivation, reason intervenes only to set limits, the main source remaining the past emotional experiences stored in the cognitive-affective system.

(4) Education also contains a conditioning dimension aimed at bridling personal choices, limiting rational reasoning and problem solving in favor of the application of dogmas and social norms. The great error of Emile Durkheim is to consider that the stability of society relies on this conditioning, whereas it stems from its capacity to practice problem solving.