Behave

Robert Sapolsky, a professor of biology and neuroscience at Stanford, elucidates in his book Behave the intricacies of how our brain, hormones, genes, and the laws of evolution operate. Biological and neuroscience knowledge is employed to illuminate our behaviors, encompassing the darkest, such as xenophobia, and the noblest, like compassion.

Behave is a refreshing read that offers a scientific perspective, steering clear of psychological or political biases in understanding some of the most characteristic and debated human behaviors.

Consider the example of rejecting the other, which can manifest as xenophobia. For each behavior studied, the author delves into the parts of the brain, hormones, or genes involved. In this case, the hormone at play is oxytocin.

Oxytocin makes us less aggressive, more sociable, and empathetic. While it prepares a woman’s body for childbirth and breastfeeding, it also possesses a dual function and a dark side: it fosters empathy towards those who resemble us and less so towards those who are different. Pushed to the extreme, oxytocin can lead to a form of xenophobia, aiding us in better distinguishing between “us” and “them”.

This “Us” vs. “Them” distinction is natural and facilitated the survival of Homo sapiens. Even today, “racial” differences impact the amygdala, the part of our brain activated in fear (of the other) or aggression. An eloquent experiment is described in the book: showing a white man a subliminal image of a black face triggers an amygdala reaction (fear of difference, rejection of the other). Interestingly, if the image is shown just long enough for the brain to be aware, the amygdala reaction is inhibited by the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is the seat of reason, the most recently developed part of the brain. While a reasonable person rejects xenophobia, the fear of difference remains deeply ingrained.

“We” (Us) is associated with a form of superiority, shared morality, and reciprocity in exchanges. Even if one of “us” is at fault, forgiveness comes more easily, rationalized by finding mitigating circumstances. “They” (Them), if at fault, are seen as inherently bad.

“We” can’t trust “them”; they are threatening (amygdala reaction) and disgusting (insula cortex reaction). Disgust may start with their appearance or diet but quickly extends to their culture, ideas, and morality.

“We” see “them” with an essentialist view: they are all the same, indistinguishable. Whereas “us”, each of us is unique, an individual.

The distinction between “us” and “them” is initially emotional and automatic, rationalized afterward.

There are multiple criteria for differentiation between “us” and “them”: gender, “race”, socio-professional belonging, or other forms of affiliation like associations, political parties, etc.

Designating a common enemy is often used in political parties, organizations, or even within an entire nation. Having a common enemy is a powerful way to unite a group (the oxytocin effect). However, seeking to separate creates the causes of conflicts and wars.

Although our evolution has equipped us with the ability to instinctively distinguish social groups, the author recommends practices to diminish the “us” vs. “them” separation:

• Highlight the individual, refer to each by name.
• Avoid lumping groups together without distinction, such as the poor, blacks, etc.
• Emphasize commonalities between “us” and “them”.
• Encourage considering the other’s perspective.
• Encourage people to share common goals and interests.

The strength of this book lies in scientifically explaining human behavior without moralizing judgment, providing keys for a better understanding of ourselves and others.