Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst

by Robert M. Sapolsky

  Pretty impressive, huh? Actually, maybe not. Maybe I’m just pretentiously saying, “You have to think complexly about complex things.” Wow, what a revelation. And maybe what I’ve been tacitly setting up is this full-of-ourselves straw man of “Ooh, we’re going to think subtly. We won’t get suckered into simplistic answers, not like those chicken-crossing-the-road neurochemists and chicken evolutionary biologists and chicken psychoanalysts, all living in their own limited categorical buckets.”

  Obviously, scientists aren’t like that. They’re smart. They understand that they need to take lots of angles into account. Of necessity, their research may focus on a narrow subject, because there are limits to how much one person can obsess over. But of course they know that their particular categorical bucket isn’t the whole story.

  Maybe yes, maybe no. Consider the following quotes from some card-carrying scientists. The first:

  Give me a dozen healthy infants, well formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and yes, even beggar-man thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.3

  This was John Watson, a founder of behaviorism, writing around 1925. Behaviorism, with its notion that behavior is completely malleable, that it can be shaped into anything in the right environment, dominated American psychology in the midtwentieth century; we’ll return to behaviorism, and its considerable limitations. The point is that Watson was pathologically caught inside a bucket having to do with the environmental influences on development. “I’ll guarantee . . . to train him to become any type.” Yet we are not all born the same, with the same potential, regardless of how we are trained.*4

  The next quote:

  Normal psychic life depends upon the good functioning of brain synapses, and mental disorders appear as a result of synaptic derangements. . . . It is necessary to alter these synaptic adjustments and change the paths chosen by the impulses in their constant passage so as to modify the corresponding ideas and force thought into different channels.5

  Alter synaptic adjustments. Sounds delicate. Yeah, right. These were the words of the Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz, around the time he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1949 for his development of frontal leukotomies. Here was an individual pathologically stuck in a bucket having to do with a crude version of the nervous system. Just tweak those microscopic synapses with a big ol’ ice pick (as was done once leukotomies, later renamed frontal lobotomies, became an assembly line operation).

  And a final quote:

  The immensely high reproduction rate in the moral imbecile has long been established. . . . Socially inferior human material is enabled . . . to penetrate and finally to annihilate the healthy nation. The selection for toughness, heroism, social utility . . . must be accomplished by some human institution if mankind, in default of selective factors, is not to be ruined by domestication-induced degeneracy. The racial idea as the basis of our state has already accomplished much in this respect. We must—and should—rely on the healthy feelings of our Best and charge them . . . with the extermination of elements of the population loaded with dregs.6

  This was Konrad Lorenz, animal behaviorist, Nobel laureate, cofounder of the field of ethology (stay tuned), regular on nature TV programs.7 Grandfatherly Konrad, in his Austrian shorts and suspenders, being followed by his imprinted baby geese, was also a rabid Nazi propagandist. Lorenz joined the Nazi Party the instant Austrians were eligible, and joined the party’s Office of Race Policy, working to psychologically screen Poles of mixed Polish/German parentage, helping to determine which were sufficiently Germanized to be spared death. Here was a man pathologically mired in an imaginary bucket related to gross misinterpretations of what genes do.

  These were not obscure scientists producing fifth-rate science at Podunk U. These were among the most influential scientists of the twentieth century. They helped shape who and how we educate and our views on what social ills are fixable and when we shouldn’t bother. They enabled the destruction of the brains of people against their will. And they helped implement final solutions for problems that didn’t exist. It can be far more than a mere academic matter when a scientist thinks that human behavior can be entirely explained from only one perspective.

  OUR LIVES AS ANIMALS AND OUR HUMAN VERSATILITY AT BEING AGGRESSIVE

  So we have a first intellectual challenge, which is to always think in this interdisciplinary way. The second challenge is to make sense of humans as apes, primates, mammals. Oh, that’s right, we’re a kind of animal. And it will be a challenge to figure out when we’re just like other animals and when we are utterly different.

  Some of the time we are indeed just like any other animal. When we’re scared, we secrete the same hormone as would some subordinate fish getting hassled by a bully. The biology of pleasure involves the same brain chemicals in us as in a capybara. Neurons from humans and brine shrimp work the same way. House two female rats together, and over the course of weeks they will synchronize their reproductive cycles so that they wind up ovulating within a few hours of each other. Try the same with two human females (as reported in some but not all studies), and something similar occurs. It’s called the Wellesley effect, first shown with roommates at all-women’s Wellesley College.8 And when it comes to violence, we can be just like some other apes—we pummel, we cudgel, we throw rocks, we kill with our bare hands.

  So some of the time an intellectual challenge is to assimilate how similar we can be to other species. In other cases the challenge is to appreciate how, though human physiology resembles that of other species, we use the physiology in novel ways. We activate the classical physiology of vigilance while watching a scary movie. We activate a stress response when thinking about mortality. We secrete hormones related to nurturing and social bonding, but in response to an adorable baby panda. And this certainly applies to aggression—we use the same muscles as does a male chimp attacking a sexual competitor, but we use them to harm someone because of their ideology.

  Finally, sometimes the only way to understand our humanness is to consider solely humans, because the things we do are unique. While a few other species have regular nonreproductive sex, we’re the only ones to talk afterward about how it was. We construct cultures premised on beliefs concerning the nature of life and can transmit those beliefs multigenerationally, even between two individuals separated by millennia—just consider that perennial best seller, the Bible. Consonant with that, we can harm by doing things as unprecedented as and no more physically taxing than pulling a trigger, or nodding consent, or looking the other way. We can be passive-aggressive, damn with faint praise, cut with scorn, express contempt with patronizing concern. All species are unique, but we are unique in some pretty unique ways.

  Here are two examples of just how strange and unique humans can be when they go about harming one another and caring for one another. The first example involves, well, my wife. So we’re in the minivan, our kids in the back, my wife driving. And this complete jerk cuts us off, almost causing an accident, and in a way that makes it clear that it wasn’t distractedness on his part, just sheer selfishness. My wife honks at him, and he flips us off. We’re livid, incensed. Asshole-where’s-the-cops-when-you-need-them, etc. And suddenly my wife announces that we’re going to follow him, make him a little nervous. I’m still furious, but this doesn’t strike me as the most prudent thing in the world. Nonetheless, my wife starts trailing him, right on his rear.

  After a few minutes the guy’s driving evasively, but my wife’s on him. Finally both cars stop at a red light, one that we know is a long one. Another car is stopped in front of the villain. He’s not going anywhere. Suddenly my wife grabs something from the front seat divider, opens her door, and says, “Now he’s going to be sorry.” I rouse myself feebly—“Uh, honey, do you really
think this is such a goo—” But she’s out of the car, starts pounding on his window. I hurry over just in time to hear my wife say, “If you could do something that mean to another person, you probably need this,” in a venomous voice. She then flings something in the window. She returns to the car triumphant, just glorious.

  “What did you throw in there!?”

  She’s not talking yet. The light turns green, there’s no one behind us, and we just sit there. The thug’s car starts to blink a very sensible turn indicator, makes a slow turn, and heads down a side street into the dark at, like, five miles an hour. If it’s possible for a car to look ashamed, this car was doing it.

  “Honey, what did you throw in there, tell me?”

  She allows herself a small, malicious grin.

  “A grape lollipop.” I was awed by her savage passive-aggressiveness—“You’re such a mean, awful human that something must have gone really wrong in your childhood, and maybe this lollipop will help correct that just a little.” That guy was going to think twice before screwing with us again. I swelled with pride and love.

  And the second example: In the mid-1960s, a rightist military coup overthrew the government of Indonesia, instituting the thirty-year dictatorship of Suharto known as the New Order. Following the coup, government-sponsored purges of communists, leftists, intellectuals, unionists, and ethnic Chinese left about a half million dead.9 Mass executions, torture, villages torched with inhabitants trapped inside. V. S. Naipaul, in his book Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey, describes hearing rumors while in Indonesia that when a paramilitary group would arrive to exterminate every person in some village, they would, incongruously, bring along a traditional gamelan orchestra. Eventually Naipaul encountered an unrepentant veteran of a massacre, and he asked him about the rumor. Yes, it is true. We would bring along gamelan musicians, singers, flutes, gongs, the whole shebang. Why? Why would you possibly do that? The man looked puzzled and gave what seemed to him a self-evident answer: “Well, to make it more beautiful.”

  Bamboo flutes, burning villages, the lollipop ballistics of maternal love. We have our work cut out for us, trying to understand the virtuosity with which we humans harm or care for one another, and how deeply intertwined the biology of the two can be.

  One

  The Behavior

  We have our strategy in place. A behavior has occurred—one that is reprehensible, or wonderful, or floating ambiguously in between. What occurred in the prior second that triggered the behavior? This is the province of the nervous system. What occurred in the prior seconds to minutes that triggered the nervous system to produce that behavior? This is the world of sensory stimuli, much of it sensed unconsciously. What occurred in the prior hours to days to change the sensitivity of the nervous system to such stimuli? Acute actions of hormones. And so on, all the way back to the evolutionary pressures played out over the prior millions of years that started the ball rolling.

  So we’re set. Except that when approaching this big sprawling mess of a subject, it is kind of incumbent upon you to first define your terms. Which is an unwelcome prospect.

  Here are some words of central importance to this book: aggression, violence, compassion, empathy, sympathy, competition, cooperation, altruism, envy, schadenfreude, spite, forgiveness, reconciliation, revenge, reciprocity, and (why not?) love. Flinging us into definitional quagmires.

  Why the difficulty? As emphasized in the introduction, one reason is that so many of these terms are the subject of ideological battles over the appropriation and distortions of their meanings.*1 Words pack power and these definitions are laden with values, often wildly idiosyncratic ones. Here’s an example, namely the ways I think about the word “competition”: (a) “competition”—your lab team races the Cambridge group to a discovery (exhilarating but embarrassing to admit to); (b) “competition”—playing pickup soccer (fine, as long as the best player shifts sides if the score becomes lopsided); (c) “competition”—your child’s teacher announces a prize for the best outlining-your-fingers Thanksgiving turkey drawing (silly and perhaps a red flag—if it keeps happening, maybe complain to the principal); (d) “competition”—whose deity is more worth killing for? (try to avoid).

  But the biggest reason for the definitional challenge was emphasized in the introduction—these terms mean different things to scientists living inside different disciplines. Is “aggression” about thought, emotion, or something done with muscles? Is “altruism” something that can be studied mathematically in various species, including bacteria, or are we discussing moral development in kids? And implicit in these different perspectives, disciplines have differing tendencies toward lumping and splitting—these scientists believe that behavior X consists of two different subtypes, whereas those scientists think it comes in seventeen flavors.

  Let’s examine this with respect to different types of “aggression.”2 Animal behaviorists dichotomize between offensive and defensive aggression, distinguishing between, say, the intruder and the resident of a territory; the biology underlying these two versions differs. Such scientists also distinguish between conspecific aggression (between members of the same species) and fighting off a predator. Meanwhile, criminologists distinguish between impulsive and premeditated aggression. Anthropologists care about differing levels of organization underlying aggression, distinguishing among warfare, clan vendettas, and homicide.

  Moreover, various disciplines distinguish between aggression that occurs reactively (in response to provocation) and spontaneous aggression, as well as between hot-blooded, emotional aggression and cold-blooded, instrumental aggression (e.g., “I want your spot to build my nest, so scram or I’ll peck your eyes out; this isn’t personal, though”).3 Then there’s another version of “This isn’t personal”—targeting someone just because they’re weak and you’re frustrated, stressed, or pained and need to displace some aggression. Such third-party aggression is ubiquitous—shock a rat and it’s likely to bite the smaller guy nearby; a beta-ranking male baboon loses a fight to the alpha, and he chases the omega male;* when unemployment rises, so do rates of domestic violence. Depressingly, as will be discussed in chapter 4, displacement aggression can decrease the perpetrator’s stress hormone levels; giving ulcers can help you avoid getting them. And of course there is the ghastly world of aggression that is neither reactive nor instrumental but is done for pleasure.

  Then there are specialized subtypes of aggression—maternal aggression, which often has a distinctive endocrinology. There’s the difference between aggression and ritualistic threats of aggression. For example, many primates have lower rates of actual aggression than of ritualized threats (such as displaying their canines). Similarly, aggression in Siamese fighting fish is mostly ritualistic.*

  Getting a definitional handle on the more positive terms isn’t easy either. There’s empathy versus sympathy, reconciliation versus forgiveness, and altruism versus “pathological altruism.”4 For a psychologist the last term might describe the empathic codependency of enabling a partner’s drug use. For a neuroscientist it describes a consequence of a type of damage to the frontal cortex—in economic games of shifting strategies, individuals with such damage fail to switch to less altruistic play when being repeatedly stabbed in the back by the other player, despite being able to verbalize the other player’s strategy.

  When it comes to the more positive behaviors, the most pervasive issue is one that ultimately transcends semantics—does pure altruism actually exist? Can you ever separate doing good from the expectation of reciprocity, public acclaim, self-esteem, or the promise of paradise?

  This plays out in a fascinating realm, as reported in Larissa MacFarquhar’s 2009 New Yorker piece “The Kindest Cut.”5 It concerns people who donate organs not to family members or close friends but to strangers. An act of seemingly pure altruism. But these Samaritans unnerve everyone, sowing suspicion and skepticism. Is she expecting to get paid secretly for h
er kidney? Is she that desperate for attention? Will she work her way into the recipient’s life and do a Fatal Attraction? What’s her deal? The piece suggests that these profound acts of goodness unnerve because of their detached, affectless nature.

  This speaks to an important point that runs through the book. As noted, we distinguish between hot-blooded and cold-blooded violence. We understand the former more, can see mitigating factors in it—consider the grieving, raging man who kills the killer of his child. And conversely, affectless violence seems horrifying and incomprehensible; this is the sociopathic contract killer, the Hannibal Lecter who kills without his heart rate nudging up a beat.*6 It’s why cold-blooded killing is a damning descriptor.

  Similarly, we expect that our best, most prosocial acts be warmhearted, filled with positive affect. Cold-blooded goodness seems oxymoronic, is unsettling. I was once at a conference of neuroscientists and all-star Buddhist monk meditators, the former studying what the brains of the latter did during meditation. One scientist asked one of the monks whether he ever stops meditating because his knees hurt from all that cross-leggedness. He answered, “Sometimes I’ll stop sooner than I planned, but not because it hurts; it’s not something I notice. It’s as an act of kindness to my knees.” “Whoa,” I thought, “these guys are from another planet.” A cool, commendable one, but another planet nonetheless. Crimes of passion and good acts of passion make the most sense to us (nevertheless, as we shall see, dispassionate kindness often has much to recommend it).