How (13 page)

“Benefits can accrue to the individual from acting in a moral way and thinking in moral terms,” Joyce explains. In other words, Ook, by acting in an altruistic, self-sacrificing way—sharing, cooperating, and helping others—engendered trust, which, as we know from Professor Zak’s work, would prompt his tribe-mates to reciprocate. Ook would reap the rewards from a shared harvest, a shared shelter, and the people who watched his back, and thereby would gain a reproductive advantage over other members of his group. He would make a boodle of baby Ooks, propagating his genes throughout the culture, which would mean more moral thinkers. According to Joyce, this idea of individual selection is a more likely explanation for our ability to think about behavior and cooperation in terms of values.

Biology is not the only transmitter of Ook’s values orientation, of course. Being a social leader, Ook talks to his comrades, they observe him, and he exerts influence over them. His friends, Nook and Took, see that Ook is building a pretty good life; he has lots of food, a warm cave to sleep in, and good luck with women. If they are smart enough to observe what he is doing, his fellows will imitate him. Thus, value-based thinking may not be purely a biological adaptation, because these tribes’ people are talking to each other and sharing ideas; they can influence each other’s behavior. So, Nook and Took develop a moral capacity, as do their offspring. The tribe gets bigger and more able than the tribe two hills over not because they are stronger, but because they work together better. The actual details of
how
early man got from morality to having more babies could have gone a variety of ways, Joyce suggests, but it seems clear that values evolved because they do provide reproductive advantage.

What strikes me as interesting in this theory is how it, too, stands the notion of survival of the fittest on its head. Ook might not have been the strongest or the fastest cave dweller on the rock, but his ability to work well with others and inspire them to do the same could have made him very popular, in a nice-caveman-gets-the-girl sort of way. The more offspring Ook produced, the greater the chance that he passed his propensity for values-based thinking along with his genes, throughout the eons. Nice guys—genetically speaking—finished first.

Now, here is a leap: Our biological propensity for values-based thinking leads directly to Adam Smith’s vision of ideal capitalist enterprise: the development of a free and fair market system based on mutual advantage.

A far-fetched statement? Think about it.

Since Smith wrote
The Wealth of Nations
, the book that birthed the idea of capitalism and free markets, many have misapplied or misinterpreted his theories to justify various versions of business-is-war, laissez-faire capitalism. The key thought many overlook, however, is the concept of
mutual
advantage that lies at the very heart of his vision: Forming the basis of all markets is the idea that goods, money, or work can be exchanged for other goods/money/work and that both parties can benefit from this exchange. This cannot occur without the presence of moral values because, in order to trade, both parties must have a sense that one cannot simply take from the other without giving something in return. A mammoth tusk, for example, might belong to Ook or to his tribe as a whole; Natto, the shaman from the tribe two hills over, may want the tusk. He can take it without Ook’s knowledge or permission, or he can exchange some of his (or his tribe’s) corn for the tusk. Thinking of something as mine/ours is a value-based admission, implying an awareness of rights; that is, if you have earned/created something, then other people are obliged to respect your ownership. Ownership engenders rights, obligations, and prohibitions. To create a market, both trading parties must be capable of this sort of values-based thinking and see the mutual benefit in exchange. The rise and success of market-based economies, therefore, might never have occurred without the biological success of collaborative, values-based thought.

BELIEVE IT

There is one last piece of the brain puzzle to touch on: belief. A belief occupies a very special place in the human intellect: It can exist in the absence of any objective proof, and often in the face of direct contradiction. We all have something of a system of beliefs. Religious doctrine, cultural myth, even narrative history often sustain and propagate stories and beliefs that have no basis in fact. Some people even depend on it. For instance, flat-earthers know from study that the earth is round, but believe it to be flat nonetheless. Many people teach their children to believe in Santa Claus although they have not ridden in his flying sleigh.

A big part of our humanness involves our ability to hold both factual knowledge and belief in our consciousness simultaneously. In the case of Santa Claus, some even ascribe benefit and power to our very ability to believe. The other side of this belief coin, however, is that belief can also negate fact. We can know a fact but refuse to believe in it, and to reconcile this conflict we decide that the contradicting knowledge is wrong. Some people believe in ghosts and spirits, and their dedication to that belief—right or wrong—leads them to discount a substantial body of evidence to the contrary. I’m not here to question or refute anyone’s particular beliefs, but it is important for our discussion to understand that
believe
and
know
have two different definitions and employ two different parts of our brains.

Belief can have a powerful, uncontrolled chemical effect on how we think and process information. The starkest illustration of this is called the placebo effect. In studies done at the University of California, Los Angeles, researchers told two groups of subjects that they were to receive an antidepressant drug; one group got the drug, and the other received a placebo instead. The placebo group experienced the same physiological response as the group getting the real drug.
¹⁷
Though a drug and a placebo may both affect a specific brain region, the drug does so directly; placebo effects are typically activated by belief alone. The belief causes the brain to act as if it were fact. In another experiment at the University of Michigan, scientists injected the jaws of healthy young men with enough saltwater to cause painful pressure, while positron-emission tomography (PET) scans measured the impact in their brains. During one scan, the researchers told the men that they were also getting a pain reliever, although it was actually a placebo. Typically, pain relievers mimic the effects of endorphins or cause them to be released, thus blocking pain. In this case, because the subjects believed they were getting a pain reliever, the unconscious portion of the brain that controls the release of endorphins simply acted “as if.” Immediately, the subject’s brains released more endorphins and the men felt better.
¹⁸

These findings bolster previous research indicating that expectations play an important role in placebo effects.
Expectations typically involve affective thoughts about current and future experience
. In other words, our expectations can affect our experiences; beliefs can alter how we perceive information, and sometimes these beliefs manifest themselves
unconsciously
, separate from our conscious thought processes. Children confronted with the image of their parents wrapping presents in the living room on Christmas eve will create extraordinary fictions to explain why this sight does not refute their belief in Old St. Nick and not see themselves as doing anything illogical or out of the ordinary. Likewise, cynics who believe that everyone is motivated by self-interest will create narratives of self-serving interest in almost everything they see—
even altruistic helping
—often unaware of the influence that belief exerts on the mind. The first instance affects little but the fairy dreams of a child; the second affects your ability to succeed. You can absorb new information and let it alter your beliefs,
and
you can alter your beliefs and thereby apprehend new information.

Let’s think back to Paul Zak’s trust experiment for a moment. It had one more interesting result:
People who extended trust to others made more money than those who did not
. On average, DM1s who sent money made $14, and DM2s who returned some made $17 (those who sent nothing walked away with their original $10). The only way to make more money was to take a risk and give it away. In Zak’s game, money functioned as a metaphor for trust. In the end, the message of the game is that if you hold the right model of human nature—that people are basically good and can be trusted—you can extend more trust and make more money. Here is where belief enters the picture. If you
believe
that people are generally good and trustworthy, people sense that about you (because, as Kirsch and Esslinger showed us, humans are very good at that); they make quick judgments about your trustworthiness; and they return the trust more easily.
Belief
in trust created the conditions for trust, and the profit that results.

PLAYING TO YOUR STRENGTHS

Belief is a powerful force of inspiration and energy, but it can also get in the way of seeing clearly. Belief and perception are integrally connected. To make the journey up the Hill of A to a new understanding, you have to be willing to bring your beliefs into play and acknowledge their tremendous influence—both positive and negative—on HOW you think.

Evolution has provided us with a complex brain and a collection of peptides and hormones that act in symphony to ensure the survival of our species. That survival is not facilitated now, as it was thousands and thousands of years ago, solely by fear-based responses that cause our hearts to race, our stomachs to churn, and our faces to flush, but rather by our feeling good about each other and ourselves. Altruistic helping. Trust. Reciprocity. Values-based thinking. Belief. These behaviors, which have the power to fill the interpersonal synapses between us, seem to be hardwired to some degree into our DNA. To focus your attention in these areas seems to mean playing on your biological strengths, which is actually the path of least resistance. One theorist called it “doing what comes naturally.” Like the prelinguistic children helping a stranger, we naturally, instinctively, unconsciously seek to better our fellows. Understanding this natural proclivity leads naturally to exploring the world of HOW.

This, in the end, is why
Cast Away
moved me so deeply. Despite his solitary journey, Tom Hanks’s character was a promise keeper, invested in his connections with others. We feel in our guts that keeping promises and connecting with others are what gives our lives meaning, and most of us seek meaning in our lives. These connections give our lives significance. That is why, both biologically and culturally, mastering ways of building better interpersonal synapses with the people around us by getting our HOWs right is so germane to our success today. If we live now in a world more connected than ever before, shouldn’t we all find ways to connect better?

CHAPTER
5

From
Can
to
Should

[There is a] difference between what you have
a right to do, and what is the right thing to do.

—Potter Stewart, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

E
veryone loves tax time, that special time of year when we sit down with our loved ones and measure our financial commitment to society. Around the world, people throw joyous tax parties, where we celebrate our dedication to funding a fair, just, and honorable society. Feasts are made, wine uncorked, and people dance with gleeful abandon in appreciation of society’s goodness.

Well . . . maybe not.

I pay taxes in the United States, so that’s the system I know the best. According to U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates, taxpayers in the United States spend about 45 hours on average on paperwork per tax return filed each year, very little of it, I’m sure, in celebration.
¹
Every hour requires a small dialogue with yourself. As distasteful as it might be, recall it for a moment. You consider each receipt. Can you deduct it? Should you report it? Can you ignore it? What if you alter the number a little to your benefit? As you massage the numbers, do you quietly wrestle with the likelihood of being audited versus the potential gain of a little inaccuracy? Does the stress of potential discovery add an additional, nonmonetary cost to the process? Do you carry that concern with you, even when you are not actively engaged in the process? How about the emotional costs? Do you argue with your spouse or partner, or stress over the amount of money you’ve spent or not saved to pay the tax man? How much time do you spend actively
not
doing your taxes, procrastinating because they are such a drag? While you are not doing them, aren’t they still in the back of your mind? Do you carry them around with you even when you’re avoiding them?