Through the last editions of "The Moral Molecule Under The Microscope", we have talked about Oxytocin and its role in dictating our behavior. This is an amazing discovery that I might have understated. Therefore, I will dedicate this post to narrate how Paul J. Zak decided to add measurements of Oxytocin to his experiments. In addition, I will ask more philosophical questions in order to portray how far ahead this new knowledge is compared to previous notions of what shaped our behavior, making it pro-social or anti-social.
"It is not from benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest". (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations)
To start, let's talk about old theories of what drove us to act "badly". Plato described the mind as a charioteer trying to rein in the body's wild, animal impulses, which he characterized as spirited horses. Therefore, to him, it existed a clear separation of where the stimulus for "good" or "bad" came from. The body tried to pursue its wild dreams, while the mind tried to control it and keep it in check. Then, during the medieval times, a similar idea was being passed around. The flesh still pursued its pleasures, but with our minds and with prayers, we needed to put those pleasures in check. For example, in the medieval world, you needed to avoid pride, envy, or greed. Afterwards, the west starting moving away from ideas of sin. I mentioned, pride, envy, and greed, because with Adam Smith and birth of economics and capitalism, they were not regarded as sins anymore. If anything, they could even be qualities if they stayed within a certain range. Trying to get ahead was no longer seen as a result of unruly passions. In the age of reason, getting ahead was the reasonable thing to do.
The time-frame of the birth of economics definitely tainted its perspective of human behavior. "Homo economicus" was born. It is the concept in many economic theories portraying the humans as consistently rational and narrowly self-interested. But now, newer behavioral research is showing that we are not as self-interested or rational as homo economicus theorized. We seem to have several pro-social behaviors that are not very rational. Nevertheless, these behaviors have been shaped and preferred by evolution. In the end, we are biological beings, so everything we are emerges from a biological process. Through natural selection, biology rewards and encourages behaviors that are adaptive. By adaptive, I mean behaviors that will contribute to the health and survival in a way that produces the greatest number of descendants going forward. Then, why have some "irrational and selfless" behaviors passed the test of natural selection? More research needs to be done.
One of the key variables shaping behavior seems to be oxytocin. Zak's interest in oxytocin first surfaced after reading research on the effects of injecting it into the brains of small fury animals, such as moles, voles, or prairie dogs. It acted as a magical love potion. It created an instant and powerful monogamous attachment. Oxytocin seemed to regulate several forms of attachment including bonding to a mate, tolerance of neighbors in the cage or colony, and even tolerance of one's own offspring. By inhibiting oxytocin researchers observed mothers shunning their offspring while inducing it caused mothers to nurture offspring that was not even their own! In nature, oxytocin surges when signals from the environment indicate that it is safe to relax or snuggle. So in some sense (and along with many other hormones), oxytocin regulated when to let your guard down and when to be more wary. So it has evolved to help humans walk the line between competition and cooperation, benevolence and hostility, etc. Before these discoveries, oxytocin was regarded as a purely reproductive hormone. To me it makes perfect sense that something that regulated bonds and attachments is originated from reproduction itself.
Picture of a vole. Pixabay image source.
It is hard to expand on any specific subject while trying to keep this post somewhat short. If you have any questions or something is not very clear, please let me know. What do you think? I'd like to hear your opinions.
If you want to check out other thoughts that this awesome book has evoked, click on these past posts:
- The Moral Molecule Under The Microscope #1: Witnessing An Act Of Trust Makes You Behave More Pro-Socially
- The Moral Molecule Under The Microscope #2: On An Erroneous And Antiquated Economic View Of Human Behavior
- The Moral Molecule Under The Microscope #3: On The Relation Of Oxytocin And Pro-Social Behavior
Best,
