Almost all?

I’ve been enduring my way through a book called “The Science of Influence” by Kevin Hogan. It’s on how the psychology of sales, which I don’t care much about, but I am reading it because “psychology of sales” = “psychology of influence.” And “psychology of” anything is about people, and that makes me happy.

I recently ran across something the author wrote that just did not make sense when the reader thinks it through:

“Have you ever seen a news story where a man raced into a burning building to save a young child? Not only is that an altruistic act, it is part of most people’s genetic programming… Almost all people are preprogrammed to act in the best interests of:

Themselves.
The family.
The group.
Society.
God.”

What gets my attention are the words “most” (in “it is part of most people’s…”) and “almost all” (in “Almost all people are…”). This section is about “genetic programming;” if I am not mistaken, that would also be known as “human nature.” The nature versus nurture debate says there are two possible sources for personality – human nature and environment, particularly during upbringing (most psychologists, sociologists, etc. believe it is a combination of the two, the debate is how much of each). If something is “part of most people’s [human nature],” then it is part of all people’s human nature, by definition. Similarly, if “almost all people are preprogrammed to act…,” then all are, again by definition.

I am also not sure where the list came from or if it is in any sort of order. Presumably the highest priority is last and the lowest priority is first. I presume that because shortly before the list it says, “Not only is that an altruistic act…” That statement seems to place altruism as a very high priority, which would place, at the very least, family and society above the individual. It is interesting that introducing this list is where “almost all people” shows up. Almost all people, but clearly not everyone, have been preprogrammed to prioritize: God, society, group, family, self (sounds almost like Unit, Corps, God, Country). Why most and not others? Perhaps all of this can be cleared up by changing “preprogrammed” to “conditioned” and “genetic programming” to “socially conditioned.” In which case it is in the domain of nurture, not nature. Or just remove “most” and “almost all” and sound more authoritative.

In the end, I am wondering about the author’s credentials. Sure, a person can deliver talks, hold seminars, and write books. But what training does he have in psychology if he does not seem to understand the difference between human nature and social nurturing? This is covered in Psychology 101; it does not exactly require advanced learning in psychology to know this.

Finally (again)

And so it begins. Hide now if you want, I won’t blame you if you do. I plan to make this my primary blog. I’ll still use the other sites, though, for specific audiences.

There isn’t a whole lot to say at this point. If you know me, you know the sort of experience that can be like (I’m not really sorry, you’re the one who still chooses to be my friend even after you know what that entails). If you don’t know me, good luck figuring it out. I’m me, really. If I had to give, say, six words or short phrases to describe myself (because limiting it to single words is, well, limiting), hm… random, enigmatic, compassionate, a devotee of the arts (whether theater, opera, music in general, books, film, poetry, etc.), completely in love with life and all it has to offer (especially people), and a huge fan of Audrey Hepburn.

Originally I was thinking to make this blog more writing oriented, but screw that, who knows where this will go. The writing is there, the website that is listed somewhere around here has what I’ve written, but I’m too me-ish to stick to only one subject.

Anyway, this is plenty long enough to commence my commencement with, so off I go to my own little world.

Cheers!