The Humanology Handbook

[Elliot Kane]

The Humanology Handbook

Humanology is an Art, not a Science. It is a way of looking at and, hopefully, understanding people, but its purpose is to lay down a framework in which that understanding may be reached, not to create a set of cast iron rules. It includes a great deal more Philosophy than Psychology, including much that must remain pure speculation due to the impossibility of providing proof.

There are two main reasons for this thread. The first is that my theory index has become far too bloated with distractions, so that anyone hoping to learn the actual Art must also wade through a ton of extrapolation and deal with a read order that is not optimised for best effect; and the second is that this thread will allow me to link everything together into a more coherent whole by including bridging pieces and other comments throughout.

General Index

Reality
Tribalism
Cycle of Civilisations
The Law
Gender differences
Religion
The Wider Cycle
Historical Inertia
Good & Evil
Inter-relationships
Habit
Decisions
Identity
Perception
Psychology
Changing the world
Analytical Principles of Humanology

It has often been said that to understand a person, you must start at the beginning of his/her life and find out what has made him/her the way that s/he is. I would argue that the same thing is true for humanity as a whole, so it is at the very beginning that we shall start. Humanity is little more than another ape at this stage (Or perhaps a little less) but we are about to make the single greatest discovery in the history of our species. The one that will make the difference over and above all others...

The Origins Of Sentience

We humans are different to other animals. Not because we are somehow more noble or inherently better than they, nor because our species is in any way elevated by reason of opposable thumbs. No. The difference lies in this thing called 'sentience', a kind of raised level of awareness that allows us to do things no other animal can do.

This is the theory, but pinning down the specifics becomes a lot harder. Think about it. What exactly is sentience? What does it involve, and how did it come about? We know what it leads to - complex and evolving social structures, written language and everything else that we do that makes us unique in the animal kingdom. But these are effects, not causes.

Anyone who spends much time observing animals will swiftly conclude that they are not stupid. Experiments have proven that squirrels will solve any kind of complex puzzle if it involves getting at a bag of nuts, and that their approach to problem solving strongly mirrors our own. They use a simple method of trial and error, and they learn by their mistakes in order to progress towards the prize. Nor are squirrels alone in the animal kingdom in being able to solve complex problems.

So 'sentience' is clearly not the same thing as 'intelligence'. It cannot reasonably be argued that many species have less reasoning capability than the average person. The difference must lie elsewhere, and indeed it does.

Humanity has advanced by creating complex social models and concepts and then acting as if those concepts were somehow valid and real and right. Indeed, the very concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are in and of themselves a part of this process.

And yet... Animals too know something of 'right' and 'wrong'. Not just by things we teach them, but within their own societies also. So we are not quite at the answer yet...

There is, however, one thing we definitely do have that animals do not - the ability to lie to ourselves. To convince ourselves that concepts and ideas with no true existence, such as 'justice' and 'mercy' have any meaning beyond what we give them. And far more importantly, the ability to convince ourselves we were right after all, even though what we did was wrong.

The first sentient human probably did something like stealing some food from a friend, and then, because he felt bad about it, he convinced himself he was doing the right thing after all because he needed the food more than his friend did. It is the ability to tell ourselves the little lies that make all the larger and more important lies possible. The things that shape who and what we are as a species.

The true nature of sentience, the thing we have that no other species does, is simply the ability to believe in our own lies completely and wholeheartedly. Makes you proud to be human, doesn't it?

[Elliot Kane]

Humanity has learned how to deceive other humans and - vastly more importantly - has gained the ability to deceive itself, not just as individuals, but also as a species. This invention enables almost everything else we do, from the construction of complex social models to the sense of self importance that underlies our perception of both ourselves as individuals and species and of our place in the universe.

We always were and still remain a bunch of jumped-up monkeys with delusions of grandeur, but we are also incredibly inventive monkeys. Before moving on with the development of our species through time, however, it is perhaps best to stap aside for a moment and take a look at the medium through which we move. Just as we cannot hope to understand a fish without an understanding of water, so we cannot hope to understand humanity without first looking at Reality itself.

The Nature Of Reality

"With our thoughts we make the world" - Buddha.

Reality seems like such an utter mess when you start to look at it. Something that is 'real' to me you may consider nothing but fantasy and vice versa. How 'real' is language? It's just a human invention - a clear example of make believe - yet it has a definite impact on the world. Is it 'real' or not? How can an invented thing with no actual physical existence be 'real'?

Then there is time. There may be a lake close to where you live and to all proof it is 'real'. You can swim in it, fish in it, take water from it, float boats on it... It's 'real' surely, but just you come back in 50,000 years. Chances are it'll be gone or changed beyond all recognition. Same with mountains, though you may have to wait a few million years for changes there. It is clear that what is 'real' now is not always going to be 'real'. Reality is clearly time bound.

Similarly, what is true in one location is not necessarily true in another. The boiling point of water changes depending on the altitude, whilst a great many scientific 'laws' depend greatly on the conditions around them.

As long as we think of 'Reality' as one single lump it is obvious that we cannot properly understand it. If we cannot understand it, we cannot truly comprehend anything that is a part of it. For this reason, it is necessary to sub-divide 'Reality' into parts that we can clearly label, define and thus comprehend.

This is how I do it:

Subjective Reality: is that which is real to the subject. Each of us has our own long list of beliefs and thoughts and feelings that may mean little or nothing to anyone else, but which thoroughly inform everything we are and everything we do. To us, this stuff is 'real' and because of that we act as though it is.

Objective Reality: is that which is real regardless of belief or opinion. If I blow an ultrasonic dog whistle that a dog responds to when a nearby human hears nothing the fact is that a sound occurred. Every human nearby may agree that there was no sound, but their opinions do not change the fact. Objective reality can be hard to spot when it is not tied to physical objects - like 'there is a mountain here'.

Consensual Reality: is that which is agreed to be real by groups of people. The most obvious example here is of course language. There is no language that is not created by creatures as a means of communication, and the only value a word has is the one that those using it agree it has. Where our understanding of Consensual Reality differs (As between nations, peoples etc) there is often friction and outright conflict for the simple reason that the two define what is 'real' very differently to each other.

Please note that the above three reality types are both time- and space-bound. Our definition of what is 'real' can change as we grow older or experience new things; consensus changes over time and depending on the social mores of the location you are in; even the largest mountains fall in time.

True Reality: is included for the sake of completion only. It is that which is true regardless of time or space - an 'eternal truth' if you will. Such a thing may or may not exist, but the possibility requires that allowance should be made for it.

[Elliot Kane]

Before we start to look at modern humans, it is necessary to examine the broad sweep of history so that we may gain an understanding of how and why humans are the way they are today. The best method in which to do that is probably to start wide and go narrow, so we will return once more to the prehistoric world and take a look at how tribes and nations come together, rise, and then fall apart. Not least because all of those things have happened many times throughout history and doubtless will happen many times again. It is quite ironic that we all believe our own nations/tribes/whatever are 'forever', yet the grand sweep of history holds that we are inevitably wrong.

Nonetheless, it is time to turn our attention once more to 'know the history, know the species'. This, in broad sweep. is the history...

The Origins & Growth Of Tribalism

Anyone who wishes to understand the true nature of humanity must first understand the origins of our species, and how we developed from those origins into the complex social creatures we are today.

I have addressed the origins of sentience elsewhere, and also the nature of reality. Both of those theories now become important tools in understanding this, the next step on the road to comprehending both what we ae as a species, and why.

Through the gaining of sentience, humanity has gained the ability to not only see reality in absolute terms, but far more importantly we have gained the ability to define our own, both singly and collectively.

Next, we must examine the historical context in which the first true humans emerged into the world. As far as can be proven, we are in the Ice Age - a period of extreme hardship for all creatures, and one that gave rise to many fierce and savage predators. Humans are not yet numerous, and our prime concern is entirely narrowed down to surviving from one moment to the next.

Originally, humans would probably have lived in small extended family groups, as this is the perfect setup for gatherers and hunters of small game, but small family groups are little more than mobile snacks to sabertooth tigers and the other fierce predators of the era and the biggest food sources were impossible to hunt for small numbers of humans, however cunning.

So our ancestors redefined their reality, as our species always does when under serious threat.

Specifically, several small family groups would gather together to hunt larger game that could feed all of their families for longer periods. To start with it is probable that these were temporary alliances, but over time the groups would intermarry (Perhaps 'interbreed' would be more accurate here, as no-one is certain how far back the concept of marriage goes) and grow to realise that a permanent alliance was advantageous to all concerned.

Certainly, the origins of ceremony lie in this time, and would have begun with celebrations for a successful hunt, which would highlight the deeds of the most daring and successful hunters. Not only would this draw the group closer, but it would encourage courage and great deeds in the hunt - a thing to the advantage of all.

Humanity's ability to redefine its own reality would also have led to the development of clothing (Protection from the fierce cold) and the use of domestic animals (Specifically, dogs. It would have been pretty obvious to a hunter that wild dogs were a lot better at detecting lurking predators than they were, so grab a few puppies, and you have a state of the art warning system and a tracker all in one). The use of fire as a way to keep warm rather than a thing to be fled from is also due to this redefinition of reality.

With a larger social group came the need for more complex social structures, and a greater definition of the roles of individuals in the growing community. Leaders begin to emerge at this stage, and would initially have been the best hunters, as the highest requirement was for food. The concept of tribal warfare is still a short way off, yet, so even the concept of the warrior is not yet in evidence.

The primary requirement is seen as the survival of the tribe, as this accords entirely with our inborn need to ensure the survival of our species as a whole, so that a sort of pecking order of importance develops - if indeed it has not already done so. The men will protect the women; the women will protect the children. In terms of the species as a whole, children are the future so are the most important thing. One man can father many children as long as many women survive, but one woman can only have one child (On average) at once. This sets a clear instinctive priority - a primacy of survival, if you will - that remains with us in human relationships today.

This survival order led to the division of labour along gender lines, with men concentrating on the far more hazardous pursuits (Such as hunting and fighting) and women running the settlement. This in turn led to the main differences in approach between men and women that persist today.

By now, we have a nascent tribal system, with a fast developing group loyalty and the harsh conditions that created the human squirreling instinct that was so necessary then but now is warped into the greed for material possessions that is so much a curse of modern living. Only one final push is required to take us to the stage of full on tribalism, and that was soon to arrive.

In conditions as harsh as the Ice Age, with food so scarce, it would not take long for one or more tribes to grow too succesful for their own good, and create a scarcity of food by over hunting. At this point, the tribe has two options - starve, or seek out new hunting grounds.

To start with, it is possible that tribes could move around peacefully, but sooner or later it would be inevitable that two tribes would both seek to settle in the same location because of the rich hunting. A location that would not contain enough food for both tribes. A far smaller tribe may be chased away by a larger, but if two tribes of roughly equal size try to settle in the same area and neither will move... The answer would be the invention of one of our most tragic flaws as a species - war.

Both tribes would have weapons for the hunt. Neither would wish to give way, as they are each seeking to protect their own people and do their best to feed and protect their families. The result, tragically, would be a brutal fight until either one tribe was forced to flee or it was exterminated.

Humans being what we are, this would cause a new reality shift, where war is seen as a necessary thing, and outsiders and strangers would be regarded with suspicion as prospective enemies and possible thieves of precious resources. We have now arrived at a point where humanity is a series of armed camps, deeply suspicious of outsiders and fighting small skirmishes against their neighbours in a bid to obtain precious resources.

The age of tribalism has truly arrived.

[Elliot Kane]

The Cycle Of Civilisations part 1 - Origins

The age of the nomadic tribe ends with the invention of farming. Once a crop is planted, it needs tending for many months before it will produce food, and the tribe cannot wander away somewhere else while the crop is growing. So a camp is established which over time becomes a permanent settlement. It is also at this time that true job specialisation starts to occur, and fairly soon, as the community grows, barter will follow.

The age of civilisation has begun.

The first true specialisation is the division between the hunters and the farmers. Both perform the vital duty of feeding the community, and the whole community will help bring in the harvest, but a hunter does not have time to commit to farming, and vice versa. In the early years, when farming is a matter of scattering seeds and hoping for the best, the women may tend the farms whille the men hunt, but sooner or later someone will invent heavy agricultural devices that require a man's strength, and a true division of labour will occur between the men of the settlement.

Greater availability of food, allied to the security of a permanent settlement, will create a growing population which will, in time, allow for more specialised trades to occur. The domestication of birds and animals that cannot be easily kept by a travelling tribe also becomes possible, leading to a wider range of foodstuffs. The alliance between man and cat that helps keep rats out of the barn where the grain is stored also has its origins here.

So far, all communities are small and widely spaced, with most being walled villages that have little or no contact with other settlements.

With the creation of specialist professions will come, inevitably, the development of trade. Potters, smiths and metal workers, jewelers, saddlers, boot makers, cartwrights - professions of all kinds will be springing up as communities grow in size to the point where every member of the population is no longer required to work only towards feeding the community. Each of these professions and every other manufacturer of goods will have a need to find new customers, and so the development of the mercantile class and the establishment of trade becomes inevitable.

In the beginning, the only trade will be between nearby settlements, and will probably be a somewhat cautious affair as up until this time 'stranger' and 'enemy' are synonymous terms. this is the origin of the parity of those two words in many languages right up to the present day.

Trade leads to trust (Or war, but I'll deal with the likely favourable possibilities here), and a growing sense of friendship between settlements which will see the slow formation of alliances which will help both communities to survive. Communities that grow closer will tend to intermarry, making the links stronger and the alliance more permanent.

During this time, another natural process is also occuring. The population of the more prosperous and successful settlements starts reaching a point where the community is no longer capable of feeding everyone, so a number of people leave the settlement in order to settle into a new area close by. This naturally leads to two closely allied settlements in close proximity.

By now, the upshot of all this careful spreading out is obvious. A large band of marauders will start raiding the prosperous settlements, so the leaders will meet to elect a war leader to command their combined forces, and the raiders will be exterminated or driven away. In either case, a new concept has arisen - that of the 'over leader' who commands many settlements.

A single leader allows greater co-ordination between settlements and can resolve disputes a lot more easily than a council of equals - a fact which will soon be apparent to all. So, in the interests of greater social cohesion - at this point in human development an absolutely vital concern - a primitive feudal system comes into being. The 'over-leader' becomes king, the leaders of each settlement are dukes, and so on down. Not that the names matter, as the concept is always the same.

A need to ally against outside threat has created the first nascent kingdoms. No longer are humans bound into small roving tribes that are mutually antagonistic. We have now reached an age where much of humanity is settled into small kingdoms, and where trade and commerce between settlements and sometimes even between countries is encouraged.

This is a time when humanity prospers - but also a time when every tiny kingdom must regard its neighbours with fear and suspicion, and must be prepared at any moment to defend its people and its goods from foreign agression. Raiders, sanctioned and otherwise, are rampant, and nothing can be countenanced that divides or disrupts the community, as where untiy is strength, so division is a weakness that every enemy can exploit.

A strong, outward looking community that is clearly focused on defending itself from enemies without, and united in common cause within, is one that will have the best chance to survive. In the world that humanity is building, just as in nature, the strong will survive and the weak will be swept away.

We are now but one step removed from the first age of empires.

[Elliot Kane]

The Cycle Of Civilisations part 2 - The Rise

There are a number of things that must all be in place if a society is to successfully rise above those that surround it, and in time become a nation or an empire. First and foremost, it requires a strong sense of community - a cohesiveness that will not be equalled at any other time in the Cycle. This in itself is both good and bad, as shall be seen.

This cohesion is the result of a blend of strong and often draconian laws, a powerful and influential religion that both supports and is supported by the state, and a sense of both overt threat from outsiders and a feeling of the superiority of one's own society over that of all others.

As a general rule, this is not a good time to be any kind of free thinker or to experiment in any area that is not beneficial to the growth of weapons technology. Artists and philosophers will frequently be scorned as effeminate, and a woman's place is mostly considered to be in the home, producing the next generation of warriors.

A strong sense of purpose will exist, and the people will often think of themselves as the chosen people of their god/gods, over and above all others. They will mostly believe that they have the right to do whatever it takes to survive because of this. They will be very outwardly focused on the 'heathens' that surround them, and watchful in case of threat.

A society with these characteristics will often exist in a state of virtual warfare with many of the other tribes/societies around it, as raiders sneak across the borders on both sides. As a general rule, a poorer tribe will raid a richer because they cannot afford to trade, while the richer will raid back as a way of gaining revenge. Sooner or later, however, this situation will always lead to all out war as the richer and more powerful nation seeks to secure its borders.

To truly rise, a society needs not only strong cohesion, but also a weath of food and resources which will allow for a strong and sustained population growth and the development of new technologies and trades that will, in time, support the infrastructure necessary to expansion.

When it is finally ready, the rich and growing nation will seek to eliminate the threat to its people in the only way that makes any sense - by conquering the raiders' territory and either subjugating them or driving them out. What first begun as a struggle for resources becomes instead an attempt to create a permanent defensive screen around the home nation.

The richer nation does not always win, especially if the terrain of the raiders' nation is very mountainous or is otherwise built so as to strongly favour a defender, but in these cases it will usually bog down into a series of small wars down many years, with the raider nation variously gaining its independence or being reconquered again until some kind of final resolution is reached.

By and large though, the richer and more populous nation will win, simply because it can outproduce the other, has more warriors, and has more advanced technologies. At this point, the borders of that nation are effectively expanded, and the missionaries move in to teach the newly conquered peoples all about the 'real' god/gods/goddesses - in other words, teaching them to live by the same rules as the conqueror nation. Because the strength of a deity is 'proved' by the success of his or her people, many will convert to the new religion in time, and the conquered nation will slowly start to become one with the conquerers - a process that can sometimes take many hundreds of years, and at other times might never happen at all. A lot will depend on how the conquered peoples are treated, both initially and in the years that follow. Intermarriage is a vital part of this process.

Nonetheless, the conquering people will now discover a thing that they had not previously considered. With new borders, there frequently come new enemies! The former raider nation had enemies of their own - people who were raiding THEM, and who see no reason to stop just because the territory is in new hands. So once again, the expanding nation must fight to secure its borders, and once again its territory will expand.

This is how empires truly rise, in the beginning - not by deliberate policy, but by accident.

Eventually, the expanding nation will reach a point where its borders are marked by strong natural features - major rivers, great mountain chains, deserts or seas and oceans. Many stop here, and over time become countries.

Sometimes however, a nation is forced to act to defend its trade interests abroad, or to wipe out a similarly expanding and overtly hostile power. In both of these cases, the wars are inevitable and are fought for one or both of two main reasons - control of resources and elimination of a threat to their own power.

Where the invaded nation is of no threat whatsoever to the invader, the war is always about control of valuable resources. Where an overt threat exists by continuous raids, the war is one of threat elimination. There is only one other reason why a nation will ever go to war, and that is as a distraction from internal problems, but that is a subject for another time, as it has no relevance at this stage of development.

Rome destroyed Carthage primarily to break the Carthaginian dominance of trade around the Mediterranean basin - because of its resources - as Carthage was no real threat to the military might of Rome, although it would be foolish to suppose that Rome did not also wish to prevent the rise of any power that might one day threaten it - so something of both main reasons. A rising nation is very good at spotting and eliminating potential threats. It has to be. Macedon destroyed Persia primarily to defend its own borders and to destroy the age-old Persian control of Greece. Resources were secondary, though certainly a welcome bonus, I am sure. The British Empire was primarily about control of trade - so resources. Most of the nations it fought were no threat to its borders whatsoever. The main causes of expansion in action, from a historical perspective.

Sooner or later, the rising nation will have eliminated all major threats to its power, and have control of all the major resources it needs. At that time, the empire or nation will cease to expand, and slowly will transform into the second stage, which will be dealt with in the next section.

In summation, the major characteristics of a rising society are:

- A strong and intolerant religion
- Strong and mostly draconian laws
- An outward focus
- A very strong social cohesion that suppresses all independent thinking and insists on normative behaviour
- An emphasis on the good of the society over that of the individual
- A strongly militaristic society, and a very casual attitude to death and dying
- Not a good period for artists, dreamers, or independent thinkers

[Elliot Kane]

The Cycle of Civilisations part 3 - The Height

There comes a point in the growth of any successful and thriving civilisation when it has run out of potential threats. Former enemies are now either allies (Unusual) or destroyed (Very likely) and the borders of the country or empire are well established and secure. they are also far enough away from the borders of the original homeland that the capital city and the surrounding countryside is free from raiders.

It is at this point that the society truly starts to reach the flower of its civilisation. Influenced by the many other cultures and languages it has encountered in its expansion and the various trade links it has established, and enriched by the wealth of conquest and trade, the empire or country settles into an era of comfort with itself. Feeling itself to be strong and invulnerable, it encourages a growth in the arts that is unmatched at any other period, and a flourishing of philosophy and the non-martial sciences.

Pragmatism is allied to a growing sensibility for the needs of others, and a growing tolerance of difference. Social cohesion is weakened, but not to a fatal extent. Religious tolerance is practiced, and the law begins to allow for the rights of the individual as well as the good of society. Insofar as the perfect balance between both exists, it will be at this period.

The true strength of the society is considered so unassailable that it will likely endure forever, and the overall attitude is that anything built now should still be seeing use by one's ancestors in a thousand years and more. The people are building for the future, architecturally, socially, philosophically - in all ways, and they know it.

A growing respect for human life is also evident at this stage of development.

The civilisation at this point is not only looking outwards to the world, but inwards also, trying to improve the lot of its people and create a unity amongst conquered and conquerer that will endure, blending them into one people. Intermarriage will not only be tolerated but also encouraged, as it creates a closer unity between the various tribes that make up the country or empire.

Throughout history, the most successful and enduring growths have been those that have successfully integrated a number of tribes into a single nation, with the intermingling of bloodlines so prevalent that in the end there is no distinction between conquered and conquerers. Any system that has preferred segregation or otherwise discouraged this integration has ultimately collapsed, because it is wholly against human nature for any tribe or people to accept subjugation to another if there are alternatives. Let the controlling tribe grow weak for even a moment, and the subject peoples will rise in rebellion. This is also true of colonies who come to see themselves as being founders of what is, in essence, a new tribe.

Britain lost the colony that later became the United States for just this reason. The new Americans had come to see themselves as a new tribe rather than an offshoot of Britain that happened to be overseas, and felt more and more like a subject people rather than a part of the British Empire. Ultimately, they rebelled because they were not treated as equal citizens and felt that they should be. "No taxation without representation." This alienation was the result of great folly in Britain, and should serve as a salutory lesson to would be empire builders everywhere.

The biggest problem facing this stage of society is, sadly, that it cannot endure for long. In a few scant generations, either a new threat will rise causing a new growth (Very unlikely) or the civilisation will sink into decline and ultimately fall.

In summation, the major characteristics of a society at its height are:

- A strong but tolerant religion
- Strong but just laws.
- A focus that is both outward and inward.
- A strong social cohesion that nonetheless encourages independent and creative thought.
- A good balance between the good of the society and that of the individual
- A well balanced society, militarily strong but also strong in trade and the arts and sciences.
- A growing esteem for human life, but still with an acceptance of death as being a part of life.
- A very good period for artists, dreamers, and independent thinkers.

[Elliot Kane]

Cycle Of Civilisations part 4 - Decline & Fall

After a civilisation reaches its peak, the only way to go is down, and the fall is usually relentless. A decaying civilisation may last for many lifetimes as it withers away like a rotting fruit, but make no mistake, once it has passed a certain point in its dissolution cycle there is unlikely to ever be a way back.

A society is only strong if it is socially cohesive and mentally focused, and a society in full decline is neither.

A decaying society fragments into many self-serving and self-absorbed factions, each with their own agenda and no real thought of the civilisation or the good of society as a whole, as each fights fiercely for its own slice of the pie. Most of the citizens will spend their time in the pursuit of easy pleasures, and art decays into a parody of itself, as artists seek to 'refine' art to a point where anything is considered art on the word of the artist alone, however ludicrous the assertion may be.

Similarly, a genuine and practical philosophy gives way to ludicrous pretention and pie-in-the-sky folly that is often divisive where practiced and mostly reaches heights of absurdity undreamt of in any healthy society.

Religion is either ignored or offered lip service only by the majority, while a small minority resorts to absolute fanaticism in order to try to find to find a sense of purpose in their otherwise meaningless lives.

The focus of the society is entirely inward, and the rights of the indiidual are considered more important than the needs of the society - if either are even considered at all.

Young people are given little or no guidance on what society expects, because society expects nothing, so they run wild as a result.

As social cohesion breaks down, so the crime rate accelerates. A fragmented and disunified people feel no real sense of community with the other fragmented groups that once made up their society, and may indeed feel hostility to those who represent special interest groups or elements of society whose goals or attitudes differ to their own.

An obsession with trivia over substance is prevalent.

An extreme regard for the lives of the society's own citizens is allied to a callous disregard for the lives of others and an enjoyment of ever crueller forms of entertainment, encouraging the harm and humiliation of others, human and animal alike.

The legal system is a ludicrous joke, with laws passed on a whim that taken together make no sense, being either overly controlling and rigid or encouraging of the worst elements in society. The rulers have no idea of what they are doing or supposed to be doing, and it shows. Laws are frequently passed that undermine social cohesion and so weaken the society they are meant to protect.

The society by this stage has turned completely inwards upon itself, and frequently relies on others - allies or mercenaries - to do its fighting for it, should such fighting become necessary. The obvious problem here is that mercenaries and allies have less reason to fight, and are more likely to run or melt away in the face of a serious threat.

By now, the end is inevitable and obvious. A threat arises, and the entirely fragmented and inwardly focused society reacts with shock and horror, but it has no idea of what to do, as it has long lost the ability to unify. Long sunken in the pursuit of pleasure and too afraid of death, the dying society has lost the ability to fight and will be swept away by the vigorous new and growing civilisation.

Conquered, its legacy will pass into the hands of its conquerers, who will learn from it and incorporate the best elements into their own civilisation as they too grow through the Cycle from growth, to height, to their inevitable end.

In summation, the major characteristics of a society in decay are:

- A weak religion with no real force, but often paid lip service to.
- Weak and often contradictory laws.
- A focus that is entirely inward.
- A weak to non-existent social cohesion that damages society and individual alike.
- A militarily weak society, but one that may still be strong in trade and science..
- A fear of death and desire to avoid personal pain, coupled with a callous disregard for those considered 'other'.
- A very poor period for artists, dreamers, and independent thinkers, as any signs of real talent are frequently decried as being 'old fashioned' or 'anachronistic'.

[Elliot Kane]

Any study of civilisations reveals a number of interesting facts, should you compare them. Despite vastly differing cultures, there are things that they all seem to have in common. Firstly, that every known society has a religion of some kind. Secondly, that while the respect granted to women has historically veered wildly all over the place, most societies have definite and defined roles for each gender and thirdly every society has over time evolved a set of laws that, while not always just or fair, at least establish some kind of legal framework within which people must operate. So the next areas to be examined in search of a greater understanding of what makes humans the way we are is to examine those three things. We'll start with the easiest and least contentious: the existence and purpose of criminal law.

Why the Law Exists

Criminal and civil law is so much a part of our lives and traditions that few if any ask themselves where it came from and what the point of it all is. Even most politicians and leaders have no idea, which should surely be a cause for shame among them as they are after all the law makers.

Surely it is not right that so many should be ignorant of something to essential to us all? Yet there is no easy source to consult that will tell us the point and the purpose of the law. This ludicrous state of affairs is clearly good for no-one: how can we define or defend that which we do not understand?

It is the goal of this article to address that imbalance.


The Origin

The first time that two family groups got together in co-operation rather than in war, one thing would quickly have become quickly apparent - that there needed to be some kind of rules governing conduct. Even in a very small group it is simply not enough to allow vendetta and strength of arms to determine all outcomes, for a knife in the dark is a firm leveler even when it is made of stone.

The first rules would likely have been based on little more than who was strong enough to enforce their will, and the first frameworks would have been utterly basic, but the intent was undoubtedly there from the start: vendetta is a bad thing. We will replace it with something better.

The ideas grew first of morality, bravery, honour and other 'virtuous' forms of behaviour, and then ultimately the idea that unvirtuous behaviour was wrong and thus should be punished. Morality and legality thus spring from the same basis, though they have very different purposes.


Social Evolution

A more complex society requires more complex rules, so as tribes grew there also grew the rules that underpin and reinforce the idea of society. A system of rewards and punishments for exceptionally good and bad conduct would be introduced over time. As more new things were discovered and deemed 'good' or 'bad' so new rules would be written and the law would expand.

Over time, many would come to believe, not understanding or knowing the origins, that the law is somehow in and of itself a thing that exists to be obeyed. Many governments would treat it as a tool of either oppression or a sop to their people, thus choosing not to remember why it exists in the first place.

The law becomes a thing unto itself and is refered to and thought of as such. But it is not.

The law is one thing and one thing only: it is a covenant between rulers and ruled. An agreement that the people will give up their right to revenge for so long as the govt exercises justice upon their behalf.


Final Summation

This and this alone is the purpose of both criminal and civil law: to determine what is just and right and to punish or change that which is unjust and wrong. To act as an impartial arbiter between its people, protecting the weak from those who would harm them and to ensure that the only ends served are those of Justice.

This is why we, the people, allowed laws to come into being in the first place. We - and those who rule us - ignore this truth at their peril.

[Elliot Kane]

Next, we'll take a look at the gender gap. No, nothing to do with pay or glass ceilings, but rather the actual gap in perspectives between men and women. The opposite sex is not incomprehensible, as long as you remember that were it not for sex men and women would be entirely different species, so that 'why can't s/he think the same way I do' is a complete non-starter...

The Differences Between The Sexes

In order to understand why men and women are so very different from each other in thought, feeling, and outlook, it is first necessary to examine the origins of humans, and the importance of each gender in the age old battle for survival of the species. The differing roles played by men and women in the far past have left an indelible mark upon our species that continues even to the present day.

Consider a tribe of early humans: Small in number, surrounded by a hostile environment and with an incredible mortality rate. It is unlikely most humans would have lived past their twenties, as a result of disease, predation and lack of medical facilities. In these circumstances, the future of the tribe depends upon the successful raising of children, so they become the main priority of the tribe.

Similarly, while one man can sire many children in nine months, one woman will usually only give birth to one child in that period. Clearly therefore, it is more important to protect the women than it is to protect the men. Lose a few men, and your potential for creating the next generation is not much damaged; lose a few women and your entire tribe could face extinction.

Survival thus dictates a strict order of importance, where the men protect the women, and the women protect the children. For this reason, all the dangerous tasks - such as hunting and fighting - will be done by men, while the women are kept as safe as possible

This usually resulted in a system where men did the hunting and other chores outside of the tribal camp, while women did the cooking, child rearing and other chores within the tribal camp.

This division of labour lasted for many thousands of years. Far longer than the part of human history where we moved into cities, developed writing, science, and all the other trappings of civilisation. Even to this day, there will be many who tell you that 'the man's role' is that of breadwinner - though most will not understand that they are prompted by instincts first begun at the dawn of the age of humanity.

This division of labour, and the harsh conditions of those times, led to the creation of vast differences between the way men and women think, feel and react.

While much of human behaviour is put down to genetics in this age of science, it is probably truer to say that human behaviour created the genetic patterns rather than the other way around. It is, after all, the 'successful' strains that survive to breed for the future - those whose thought patterns are the most attuned to the act of survival in the current environment.

Genetics are, thus, the echo, not the sound. As such they will be, if not quite ignored, then certainly given no great importance for purposes of this article.


The Origins of Male Behavioural Patterns

The men of neolithic societies had a number of responsibilities, most of which revolved around combat of one kind or another. Hunting, raiding, skirmishing and fighting off predators all require aggression, strength, teamwork and a dedicated single mindedness. An eye for terrain doesn't hurt either, and an ability to work out directions very easily.

On the hunt or at war, a single leader and a clear chain of command are required to ensure fast responses and a good co-ordinated effort from all involved. There is no time for discussion in the heat of battle, and anyone who would prefer to argue rather than obey orders is a liability.

In an effort to ensure his genes survived to the next generation, males would likely have been indiscriminate in their mating habits. Any chance to impregnate a female would have been better than none when the next time you go out of the camp might well be the last, and you'll be going out every day. The main cause of death amongst young males would likely have been the warriotrs of other tribes or predators. Or sometimes a prey beast that fought back.

Prey that is easily caught earns no respect; prey that is hard to catch would be respected by the hunter. Treat a tough beast with contempt and it will likely kill you after all, so there is excellent reason for this thinking.

Being a great hunter or warrior would be considered a great source of pride to a male, and was probably the main way in which the leader would be chosen. A mighty hunter will be better for the tribe as he will keep it fed, after all.

As hunter and warrior both, it does not pay to feel too much. A sharply analytical mind allows for the creation of hunting plans and battle plans both. Organisation, not empathy, is the key to success. Logic is thus valued over intuition.


The Origins of Female Behavioural Patterns

Neolithic women would have been primarily responsible for the camp site and the raising of children, but this is not to say they had an easier life than the men, nor that their role was not vital. Stronger tribes would often raid weaker ones to get more women for themselves, and the attrition rate amongst hunters was likely very high. As a woman without a man likely went hungry, this combination led to women developing a hard-edged practicality in their dealings with men.

Running a camp site is more of a collaborative process than anything else. A great deal needs to be done, but as it needs to be combined with child rearing too it is not a thing that can simply be organised by a single person. Nor is it a matter of split second decision, but rather one that requires co-operative team work and plenty of discussion between all parties.

If the men are gathering or hunting solo (As they doubtless would on some days. Not every hunt is a grand affair.) each will bring home different things, which doubtless led to trading amongst the women. It is also probable that the women would have organised care for orphaned children, as even without parents they still represented the future of the tribe.

And there would have been many orphans. The female mortality rate would have been mostly due to predators and death in childbirth.

Where the primary male defence would have been to fight or run, the primary female defence was likely to scream and run. Screaming is actually an alert for all nearby men to come to the rescue, so it's not the futile tactic it seems at first glance.

Logic doesn't help with raising children, but intuition is usually very effective, so intuition becomes vital. It is also useful for spotting hidden dangers, so serves as an important early warning system.


Men Today

Men are still more aggressive than women, and still like to prove their manhood by success at the hunt, be it by earning monrey, gaining fame and acclaim, or seducing many women. The last serves double duty, of course, as the man is still trying to ensure his genes survive into the future by this method. This desire to prove their manhood, and thus their worth, lies at the heart of male psychology.

Prey that is easily caught - be it wealth, status, or women - are still accorded no respect. A man only truly respects something he has to work hard to get. This is why men who sleep around are often lauded by their peers, while women who do the same are regarded with contempt and called nasty names.

A man who sees himself as highly successful (A 'great hunter') will have a higher degree of confidence and self belief than one who does not. Men who see themselves as failures ('poor hunters') are prone to low self esteem and self-loathing. Note that the actuality is unimportant here, only the belief.

This is also why many successful men rather ridiculously regard themselves as good leaders, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Men are either leaders or followers, and like to have a strong and steady chain of command. A man with a bad problem will seek to either solve it himself or to find someone who will tell him how to do so.

Men are very good at sharply focusing on a single task, and still have excellent spatial awareness. In the main, they are still stronger, faster and tougher than women. Logic is still the main focus of their thought patterns, which is why a man will trust his thoughts over his feelings.

Men are more likely to take stupid risks, as it proves their daring, and thus increases their prestige amongst their fellows. Courage being prized in the hunt and in war.

Men seek a woman for one of two reasons: because they are looking for a mate, or because they are seeking to impress their friends with their hunting ability. It can be hard to tell which is which, as past form is not always a completely reliable guide, and something that starts off as one may easily turn into the other.

As a general rule, men will seek a level of attractiveness in a woman that they feel comfortable with if they are seeking a mate. If they are only hunting, appearance is almost irrelevant. A woman's social status is only important to those seeking a mate, who will possibly feel threatened if she is a 'better hunter' (IE more successful) than he is. No man is worried if his lady's social status is below his own, and few are bothered by equality. A man's ego can overcome equality as long as he feels he is contributing.

If a man feels his contribution is negligible or the woman is too attractive/desirable, he will only rarely wish to mate with her permanently, as he will not believe she will stand by him when a better offer comes along. A man seeking a mate wants a woman who will stay physically faithful as this ensures all children are his. Most men will feel far more threatened by physical infidelity than emotional infidelity.


Women Today

Women are overly concerned with their attractiveness to men because their ancestors needed male protection, and without men they likely would not have eaten. Because of the often brutal mating patterns of the past, it is vital to a woman that she be loved and respected for who she is as a person also. This desire to prove themselves both attractive and worthy of love and respect is at the heart of female psychology.

The old practise of trading has resulted in a female love of shopping.

Women today are still co-operators and collaborators, and resent when a decision is taken for them without their input far more than men do. When a woman has a problem, she will seek to discuss it with her peer group.

Women are far better communicators than men on every level because of this tendency towards co-operation.

Women are still incredibly good multi-taskers, and still prize intuition over logic. This is why a woman will trust her feelings above her thoughts. Being intuition based, women do not have anywhere near the same level of emotional hang ups as men do.

Women are mainly averse to taking stupid risks as they are far too practical to have any need of bravado of this kind. Young girls still practise screaming as a game, and a woman will still be likely to scream if surprised or threatened, unconsciously summoning her tribe to her assistance, even as her ancestors once did.

Women seek a man for one of two reasons: because they are looking for a mate or because they wish to prove to their friends that they are attractive to men. It can be hard to tell which is which, as past form is not always a completely reliable guide, and something that starts off as one may easily turn into the other.

A woman seeking a mate will be looking for a good and stable envionment for her children, and thus will be more concerned with the social status of her prospective beau. A woman seeking only to prove her attractiveness will be at least as concerned with the physical attractiveness of her man, as the entire point is to prove how attractive she is.

A woman who is seeking a mate wants a man who will stay emotionally faithful to her, as that means he will stay around to provide a stable environment for her children. Most women feel far more threatened with emotional infidelity than physical infidelity.


Dating Rituals

Subconsciously, all humans work on the basis that the man should prove he can feed his prospective mate (Hence the popularity of dinner dates) and that he cares for her as more than just prey (Hence the giving of thoughtful gifts. Though in actual fact this proves nothing, as lures are well known to the hunter). This has obvious echoes in neolithic behaviour, where the man would likely court the lady of his choice with gifts of food, flowers, or other pretty things.

Generally speaking, the courtship period and the permanence of the pairing are the only things that have changed since our earliest days. The mating habits of early humans were predicated on the fact that very few couples would have lasted more than a few years before one or other of the couple died. In a tribe with many females and few males, polygamy would have been practised. In a tribe with more males than females, the strongest males only would have mated. Thus the idea of a long term partnership just did not exist in the way we understand it.

Today, men and women alike, when they seek a partner, are hoping to find someone with whom they can form a mutually supportive bond of love and respect that will last through many years.


Monogamy, Serial Monogamy and Promiscuity

These three are extremist classifications only. There are many humans - perhaps most - who are a little of each from time to time without ever fully falling into any of these types. I include them purely as a matter of interest.

The Promiscuous - those who need to prove their attractiveness to the opposite sex/hunting skills with women on an extremely regular basis - are driven by insecurity. What, after all, is there that really needs 'proving'? And why is it necessary to prove it at all? Your friends don't care, your family will love you anyway (Assuming you have a supportive family) and no-one else matters. This drive to prove themselves does not stop at the altar by some miracle, and makes promiscuous people by far the worst long term bets in any relationship. As long as they are still driven by those insecurities, they will be irresistably drawn to cheat - to continue to 'prove' themselves. After all, why not? It hasn't hurt them yet, has it? Few realise the importance of habit in determining not just human behaviour, but the way in which we think, and the way we view ourselves. Only when the promiscuous person completely abandons this sexual insecurity are they ever capable of a long lasting relationship.

The Serial Monogamist is one who really wants to be a Monogamist, but somehow things keep going wrong. They get into a relationship, it's working, and then it falls apart for whatever reason. So they jump into a new relationship too fast, try harder to make it work, and when it goes wrong again they jump to the next and... It's a vicious circle, fuelled by self-fulfilling prophecy. The Serial Monogamis becomes so afraid of yet another failure that they drag all the baggage from past relationhips into the present one, and then try far too hard while at the same time expecting it all to go wrong, and then walking out when it does because they've seen this before and know how it will end. The Serial Monogamist needs to go for at least a year without a relationship of any kind in order to sort their thoughts out, and to put their emotional baggage behind them. They need to understand that their worth as a person does not depend on who they are with, but is inherent in themselves.

Monogamy is simply finding one partner and sticking with them through life. Darn hard by any stretch, and needs a lot of tenacity, determination and mutual trust and respect. Probably the best type, but increasingly harder to find in the modern world - whether through the stresses of living, the lengthening of life spans or the changes in social convention.


End Notes

With a bit of luck, anyone reading this will have a better understanding of their own sex as well as the other. Neither sex is a conundrum or a mystery at all, if you only understand the hows and whys of where we came from as a species.

[Elliot Kane]

Next we come to one of the most interesting, thorny and contentious subjects in human history: religion. Religion has existed in many forms since the cave days, from simple Animism (The worship of nature spirits) to Polytheism (A pantheon of deities) to the current powerhouses of Monotheism (Only one deity). Nonetheless, there are remarkable similarities in every religion we know of. Not in the number of deities or the form of worship, of course, but rather in the underlying idea of providing example to the followers and thus a framework for 'correct' behaviour. This commonality is not only interesting, but allows some reasonable conclusions to be drawn about the purpose for the existence of religion...


Some Notes On Religion

By applying evolutionary psychology to religion, some interesting patterns emerge:

1) Any religion that has no moral and ethical code will ultimately be superceded. Humans crave a sense of belonging that they can only find in close-knit communities where they have a lot of common points of reference. Any religion that fails to give them that will ultimately fail.

2) Successful religions lead to successful tribes, and not the other way around. The Aztecs built a huge empire up around their religion, but it all fell apart really fast due to the practise of human sacrifice. All of their neighbours hated them, and took the first opportunity to turn on them and kill them. Mohammed, by contrast, was leading the tattered and beaten remnants of a tribe when he decided to go off into the desert and talk to God. He came out of the desert with the beginnings of The Koran, told his people God was with them, and promptly crushed all his enemies. The disciplined might and psychological edge created by religion is extremely potent.

3) All successful religions require ceremonies. This has been pretty much understood since the beginning of religion, but modern man has forgotten the purpose of it. Ceremony reinforces the ties between an individual and his or her community, by showing them that they are all part of something greater than themselves. A mutually supportive group is thus created, lowering the chance of betrayal or criminal activity.

It is obvious therefore that any tribe under threat will benefit greatly from the presence of a strong unifying religion. This does, however, leave a couple of questions unanswered:

1) Why religion? Why bring Gods into the equation at all? The answer is quite simple. If you evolve an optimum set of rules for your tribe to follow in order to benefit everybody and ensure survival, you are also forced to create a set of prohibitions, many of which will be objectionable to a vast number of people. To disobey another human being, whether he is your leader or not, is a small thing. To disobey the lords of all creation in their grand designs is quite another. Where intelligence and willpower are insufficient to the task, fear and/or devotion often suffice. As proof, I offer this: No single tribe, anywhere in the world, has EVER survived - let alone thrived - without some kind of religion. Gods create certainty and courage where fear and doubt would otherwise live; they promote unquestioning tribal unity as nothing else can.

2) Why are the reasons behind the ethical and moral codes not explained, so that the religion will continue to thrive once the tribe is no longer under threat? The problem is that religions need faith in order to work correctly. Not only do Gods not explain to mortals - it being rather beneath their dignity - but most mortals are incapable of understanding the explanations in the first place. If you cannot understand your religion, not only is your faith weakened but you yourself are somewhat alienated. Why can't Gods explain in a manner that ALL mortals can understand? Are they fallible after all? Invite questions and they never stop. Someone will always come up with something you don't have an answer for, and every unanswered question is a nail in the coffin of your tribe and your religion. Your successor gets told the whys and wherefores, just in case, but only one person in each generation will know, which means that one unexpected death leaves the religion vulnerable.

3) Do Gods have anything to do with religion whatsoever? Unless you count 'inspired by' or 'dedicated to' this is unknowable. Unless you yourself get to talk with one.

So, we know religion is important, but why exactly? What are the real advantages behind it? Why does it serve as this great unifying force in a way that nothing else can? Could it ever be replaced by something else?


As individuals, we are also communal creatures. A man who follows the general rules everyone else follows receives the approval of his community, increasing his sense of self-worth and belonging. By his acceptance of Consensual Reality, he reinforces both the communal view and his own sense of belonging. As such, he knows and accepts that his place in the world is linked to those around him.

A man who creates his own world view stands alone. His reality is entirely Subjective, and as such he may win the cautious approval of some sections of the community, but he gains none of the advantages of belonging granted to the communal thinker.

Which returns us to religion. The ultimate purpose of religion is to generate a Consensual Reality in which the whole community has an interest. The best religions promote obedience to the king or state, acceptance of the restrictions on personal freedoms necessary to create a strong tribe, and a strong core set of values that all members of the tribe can agree on. This gives them a common front with which to face their enemies, and a common standard that all can uphold equally, whatever the respective merits of each individual.

To answer our questions then, religion defines a Consensual Reality that can be shared by all members of the tribe, regardless of how big it gets. Two members who have never met before will automatically have enough in common to feel a sense of brotherhood, and to unite in the face of a common foe. Religion could only ever be replaced as a unifying force if the average intelligence was raised to a level where everyone was capable of not only working this stuff out for themselves, but also seeing why such things are necessary, even in an age of peace.

This is my general understanding of religion and the way that it works.

As one last point, familial cohesion is based largely upon Consensual Reality - hence upon the values laid down in religion. The current rise in the divorce rate throughout the world is directly attributable to a number of failures in the observance of religious values. In any society whose values are inherently determined by the Subjective Reality of the individual rather than the Consensual Reality of the whole, the emphasis must always rest with the individual. This environment is antithetical to any kind of communal development.

In other words: a strong religion creates strong social cohesion.

[Elliot Kane]

We are nearly done with the grand sweep of history, now. It's nearly time to move on to understanding individual humans - a process both simpler and more complex than understanding the species. But more on that, later. For now, let us look at the wider framework within which humanity itself exists: as one small part of a far greater whole. Understanding the grand sweep will help in understanding how humans react to it, particularly in how we develop our lives and our societies over time. 'As above, so below' is truer than you may think...

The Wider Cycle

By now, those of you who are reading my theories will have seen the importance I place upon cycles, particularly in the understanding of human society. There is, however, a larger focus - a sense in which we humans are merely reflecting the wider universe in which we live.

I do not believe it would be any kind of stretch to state that all of nature moves in cycles. Everything from the cycle of the seasons to the rotation of the Earth itself consists not of random and unpredictable movement, but rather of a continuous ever-changing pattern. Constant cycles.

It is true that no two cycles are ever the same, and thus that the patterns change from moment to moment, cycle to cycle. In an effort to put words to this phenomenon, to more properly understand it, I always visualise it as two forces in either eternal opposition or eternal co-operation. Either interpretation could be valid.

Chaos I define as the force of randomness and change; creation and destruction. Chaos works to create the new and the different.

Order is the force of stability and pattern; organisation and unchangingness. Order works to maintain what is and to prevent change.

On a universal level, these two forces thus create ever changing patterns - cycles - because they are in perfect balance. Order first maintains the long term things, because these are its priority; Chaos first changes the short term things, because those are its priority.

I am not saying the two forces are necessarily intelligent, or even that they truly exist, but I consider this a useful way of understanding the universe.

And, inevitably with me, a good way of understanding people.

When our lives have too much rapid change, we crave stability; when our lives are too stable we grow bored and seek change. The essences of Order and Chaos seeking balance within us.

Apply this principle on a societal scale, and it becomes obvious why the Cycle of Civilisations exists. Any society living in times of great turmoil - where danger lurks around every corner and threatens from all sides - craves stability, so creates that stability at its heart and then tries to impose it upon the world. Any society that sees no threats grows bored with the tedium of stability and seeks new things, thus progressing from a state of Order to a state of Chaos. Society being a structured thing, it cannot maintain itself with too much Chaos at its heart, and so must fail and fall. Only at the height of a civilisation do we exist in a state of balance, and thus are our works at their greatest level of attainment.

Highy creative people cannot organise their own lives; great planners hate too much spontaneity. Both types of people draw heavily upon one side for their talents, and so react badly when faced with a situation requiring the other.

A few points you might like to ponder

[Elliot Kane]

What does this mean for humans? Well...

Historical Inertia

The theory of Historical Inertia states quite simply that events - be they large or small - build up a kind of inertia over time so that following events are heavily determined by what people expect to happen.

On a smaller scale, this is best illustrated by looking at someone who has been in many failed relationships. Their past experience has built up a certain set of expectations about how a relationship will go, so they 'know' how to react at any given point. Because the expectation of failure is heavily built into their thinking, this makes failure more likely.

On a larger scale, when a people are used to the idea that they cannot be seriously threatened that idea becomes so firmly entrenched in their thinking that it cannot be easily shifted until the barbarians are sacking Rome itself, as it were. Consensual Reality is just as prone to habitual thinking as Subjective Reality.

Think of it this way: You are driving along a long straight road and it's dark. To start with you are going slowly because it's dark, so you can easily react to a sudden and unexpected turn. But time wears on and that road is still straight out ahead of you and you start to get either confident or bored or both, so you speed up. You can still turn at this point, but it's harder. More time, more straight road, still nothing bad so you speed up again because your expectation by now is straight road... Eventually you have built up an inertia of speed, of thought, of expectation.

The car is time, the road is your life (Or the 'life' of a people or whatever). Every choice you make is a crossroads, but the easiest path is always the one you are most familiar with - straight ahead, if you will. Over time, you make the choice faster because it's the one you are expecting to make and because the whole of your history is behind you. Eventually it reaches the point where the straight ahead route is so ingrained you'll take it even when it isn't there...

On a human level, this is mostly personal trauma and is survivable. For civilisations it is frequently the death knell. A civilisation fully ingrained with 'The Goths Are No Threat, They Are Only Barbarians' will be watching Rome burn around them before they realise that their habitual assumptions built up over many generations are very wrong...

That's Historical Inertia

[Elliot Kane]

One more look at the underpinnings is required before we shift into Psychology, and that is to look at one of the main things that defines us as a species: our ability to create codes of behaviour and then tell ourselves that we are 'Good' or 'Evil' as a result thereof...

The Nature Of Good And Evil

The purpose of this essay is to explore the true nature of the terms 'Good' and 'Evil', and to examine whether they have an actual relevance to humanity, or are merely meaningless buzz words used to cause a positive social reaction in those that hear them.

Indeed, it is obvious from even the swiftest examination of historical evidence that the ideas of what is considered 'Good' and 'Evil' change over time and by location according to the needs of the society that one examines. To the ancient Aztecs, human sacrifice was 'Good', in that it pleased the gods and so caused them to bless their people. To a Viking, raiding the rich coasts of mainland Europe was 'Good', because it allowed the people back home to be properly fed and looked after once communities grew too large for the farming techniques of the time to supply everything that was needed for their survival. Yet, to those who were raided, the Vikings were 'Evil'

Furthermore, even the concepts have no meaning for any species that has not attained a level of sentience that has allowed them to develop complex linguistic and social structures. Even the more social types of primate - arguably the closest approximation to our own very tribal behaviour - survive by the rule of the strongest and most dominant, with no social restraints placed upon the whims of the strong beyond what they can take and hold being theirs. If they can be said to have even developed the concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' in any way - which would certainly be stretching the definitions to breaking point, and perhaps beyond - they have yet to move past 'Good = Strong', a viewpoint which we ourselves are certainly not free of, but one which forms only a small part of our own far more complex definitions.

Thus, it would not be going too far to say that should the human race vanish from the Earth tomorrow, the entire concept of 'Good' and 'Evil' would vanish with us. The fact is indisputable - there is no such thing as 'Good' and 'Evil' in any objective view of the universe. We made them up.

This clear fact does, however, invite one very interesting question. Why? Why did every single human society over the entire globe, however separated from every other, develop first the concepts of 'Right' and 'Wrong', and then the more complex and far reaching concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil'.

After all. no collective human response is ever without purpose or meaning, however much the reasons are hidden from the eye of the casual observer. A society that traditionally burns its dead usually does so because of a plenitude of available lumber or other combustible materials and a scarcity of good farm land or fear of disease, just as one very obvious example. There is nothing mystifying about any ancient tradition if looked at in the context of its original time and place of origin.

Which brings us back to primitive societies, and the advent of 'Good' and 'Evil'. It is very obvious that 'Good = Strong' is not going to work for long once several families start banding together into a tribe. Not only do you begin to have a number of strong people in the same social group, but the advent of weaponry makes it very much harder to rule by brute force. A knife in the back, stone or otherwise, lays low the strong and the weak alike.

New rules and concepts were needed to govern these larger groups, and without those concepts the groups would simply fall apart due to in-fighting or be obliterated by other, more unified, tribes. A tribe is not only made strong by numbers, but by internal cohesion.

It was necessary not merely to have a proper social structure to allow the organisation of tribal life, but also for the primitive society to be able to protect those of its people who were weaker but still had great value to the tribe. As more inventions were made, and more people specialised in tasks that did not involve hunting or cooking, this would become ever more vital. A primitive shoe maker or baker would not be as strong as a smith or warrior, but their work was nonetheless important to the survival of the tribe as a whole.

It is obvious, when this background is considered, that human society could not have evolved into the more complex forms that it has achieved without a concomitant evolution of social thinking - the introduction of first 'Right' and 'Wrong' - which are basically defined as what is good and bad for the tribe as a whole - and ultimately the evolution into 'Good' and 'Evil' - terms which carry a far greater weight of social approbation or condemnation.

We may have invented the concepts themselves, but it is thus clear to the discerning eye that without a developed idea of 'Good' and 'Evil' we would never have advanced as a species, nor reached anything like the level of achievement we have today.

In a world that glorifies science to an extent that is verging on religious adoration, it is often forgotten that without the great sociological and philosophical advances of the past, none of the technology of today would be remotely possible.

Which brings us to now, and the last of the truly obvious questions - in today's world of great scientific advancement, with all the teeming billions of humans across the globe, do we need the concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' any more? Or are they simply outmoded, and long past their time? The survival of humanity and the dominance of our species is no longer in doubt, after all. Unless the world ends, it is likely that we will be here.

By now, the conclusion is also obvious. If 'Good' and 'Evil' are designed as tools to create social cohesion in a steadily enlarging population, then the larger the population, the greater the need for them because of the great ease with which one section of a tribe might become isolated or alienated from another. We are still a very violent species, and our instincts are not so far removed from our primate cousins, as a study of behavioural groups in any school will quickly display. The 'dominant' males or females will rule through strength and intimidation, even as our most primitive ancestors would have done. Higher social responses are learned, not inborn.

'Good' and 'Evil' may not be vital to the survival of humanity any longer, but they are surely vital to the social well being and happiness of all parts of our ever more numerous tribes.

[Elliot Kane]

Now that we have a greater understanding of the species, it is time to take a look at what makes individuals think the way they do. You understand by now that a lot will depend on the society, the environment, the place where the person's civilisation stands on the Cycle Of Civilisations and many other factors. To understand any individual, one must know and understand all of these things. Failure to do so will result in an incomplete understanding and thus an inability to be as effective as one might wish.

After all, all things connect...


Understanding Inter-relationships

This is not an article about romance. Sorry, people. It's about the way things and people relate to each other, and the uniqueness of those relationships.

Everything that exists has a relationship with everything else. Just by existing in the same universe, we are connected. You may think it absurd that you, wherever you are, have any kind of connection to, for example, a brick in the middle of a house on the far side of the world - but you do. The brick performs its function in relation to the other bricks, which in turn form a house, and in that house someone lives. That person may be someone you talk to, or know someone you talk to, or... But you get the idea. Everything is related to everything else. Not always in a vastly important role, no, but it's all tied in somehow.

This is the Buddhist principle of "All things are one within Samsara (The dream of the world)" and it is very true.

Moreover, the relationships between all things are unique unto the thing itself. To use our brick once again as an example, let us say that it is a brick in the middle of an outside wall and covered with a thin coat of paint. To look at the wall, you might not even see it or register its presence, but it is there an doing its job of supporting other bricks. The stresses and strains on this particular brick are quite unique. Even the best builder will not be able to spread mortar across the bricks with total even-handedness, and the brick itself, despite coming out of the same mould as other bricks, while doubtless be at least slightly different from all the other bricks. Perhaps it took a slight scratch or a minor chip that will not affect its performance as a brick, but nonetheless makes it itself. Because of these slight differences, the brick is like no other brick. It has unique relationships with every other brick in the same wall, because it either supports or is supported by all the other bricks in some measure, but in different ways.

Even so simple a thing as a wall contains all these unique relationships that will never quite be duplicated anywhere else, in any other wall. And a brick is hardly a complex organism.

Now let us apply the principle to people.

Think of the friends, and the people in your life. You may regard them all equally, or you may (More likely) hav tiers of 'good friends', 'friends', 'aquaintances', 'people I don't really get on with', etc, etc. But these divisions do not tell the whole story. You have a unique relationship with every single person you know, because you relate to each of them according to a whole host of factors, such as your feelings towards them, the relative importance they have in your life, how much you know of them, and obviously all the attitudes and feelings they have towards you.

No relationship is a one way process. It is more like a feedback cycle, where it grows or recedes according to the perceptions (Or lack thereof) of all involved.

But we have relationships with more than just each other. We have relationships with every object, too, and as with people the relationship is both unique and two way.

Let us say, for example, that you buy a pair of new shoes. They look amazing, but they are really a little too narrow and pinch your feet slightly, so you only wear them on special occasions where appearance matters more than comfort. Others may admire them or envy them (Thus having their own relationship with your shoes). The way you walk will determine which parts of your shoe start to wear down first, the amount of time you spead in them will determine how much they pinch your feet. You may come to love them or hate them depending on the effects they have on you. Everyone has favourite items of clothing, and part of the process of something becoming a favourite is how well it performs at whatever it is you want it to do. Even people who do not think about your footwear at all will still have a relationship with them, as without your footwear you would not go out and may not be interacting with them as a result.

Thus, even so simple a thing as your shoes not only have a relationship with you, but also with those around you, and have an effect on your relationships with those people. Your shoes may also have relationships with items you or outside forces bring into contact with them, of course. If someone drops a tin onto your toes, it's your shoes that take the hit first, hopefully deflecting much or all of the damage. If you step on or in something, it is likewise your shoes that are first affected.

To further demonstrate how all things can relate to all other things, let us construct a fictitious (Though somewhat plausible) chain of events connecting your footwear and the brick in the wall on the far side of the world.

You are out walking in your new shoes when you pass a building site. A brick falls from high above, landing on your foot. Your shoes aren't very good protection, and you get a few broken bones in your foot. You are in hospital, and you write to your pen pal on the other side of the world to tell him. He reads his mail on the way back to his house from his mailbox, and thumps the wall in frustration at your plight, hitting the brick. The brick got thumped because of your footwear, however indirectly. Far fetched? Sure. But possible... It's a huge world with actions and inter-actions going on all the time in a vast array far too great for the mind to take in. In a world as complex as ours, it could happen.

Everything really is connected to everything else, and thus part of the same huge weave.

There will be times in your life when you feel like just an anonymous brick in the wall, but even the bricks are unique and special in their own way, and so is each of us.

Humanology is, to a large extent, the ability to see and perceive all these little threads, and then use that perception to understand each unique and special person - and by extension to understand how groups form and how they relate and inter-relate both with each other and with other groups.

Everything and everyone is unique - but we are all a part of the same giant whole

[Elliot Kane]

Connection and inertia combined bring us to the single greatest factor in a human's thinking...

Habit: The Prime Human Motivator

In any examination of the effects of habit on the human thought and decision making process, the first step must be to define precisely what 'Habit' means in terms of this article. It is, after all, a word with many meanings in English, not all of which will be relevant here.

Habit will be used herein to refer to a process of learned thought or reaction that has become ingrained through long-held belief, repetition or experience. It can refer to mental, emotional or physical processes. It will not in any way be used to refer to any kind of chemical addiction, such as to drugs or certain forms of medicine which create an actual physical dependency. A habit can be a reliance on or learned need for some kind of thrill, interaction or device (Such as the internet). A habit is something we condition into ourselves, consciously or otherwise, or that is learned by us through mimicry or experience.

With the definition made, we may move on to exactly why I refer to Habit as the Prime Human Motivator. But then, it has become obvious, hasn't it? As people, we all have our daily routines and shifting outside of those routines makes us nervous or calls us to question what we are doing. If you doubt this, there is an easy way to test it: tomorrow, when you get dressed, deliberately ignore your usual routine and start putting clothes on in an order that you would not normally use. You will find that you slow down, that you start questioning yourself, that you might even start forgetting things. Even so simple a process as starting with the 'wrong' sock is enough to make you feel uncertain. Habit is that well ingrained in us all.

When you stand up after sitting down, you will start walking by putting the same foot forward, every time. When you speak, you will use certain terms or phrases and the inflections and accent you use will be learned responses - habits. You write in a certain way. When you reach for a door handle, it will almost always be with the same hand. While you are reading this now, many of you will be playing with the mouse, tutting softly, or engaging in other small habitual movements that help you to think.

Habit is our friend, because it takes care of all the little things we do regularly so that we do not have to think about them and can concentrate on other things. It means we can get dressed while so tired we can barely concentrate. It enables us to become masters of the Martial Arts or other disciplines that require a speed far beyond the scope of conscious thought. It can protect us from thinking too much. Through habit we learn language, social interaction and the things that will allow us to function in our society.

But Habit is also our enemy. The same thing that makes us never question the way we get dressed, the terms we use or the way we move also ties us into shortcuts we should not have. If we learn, say, that all green people are evil and wish us only harm when we are children, by the time we reach adulthood the idea may be so ingrained that even meeting and regularly interacting with green people (And finding them as human as we) cannot entirely break our long held and utterly habitual belief that all green people are evil.

Similarly, if our society has embraced deeply destructive ideas we grow with the idea that they are 'normal' and we never question them because we are habitually used to them. The most extreme example of this is probably the idea of human sacrifice, which has been practised by a number of societies. There were bound to be those who questioned the idea, but for the practise to have been regularly carried out, it would have to have been viewed as perfectly ordinary behaviour.

Habit is the art of the pre-conceived idea. Someone who believes themselves to be naturally socially inept, for example, is brought down not by a lack of ability but their own habitual expectations of failure. Because they believe they will fail at social interaction, such people get nervous, uptight and panicky and tend to blurt out the first thing they can think of, then take any reaction to it as further reinforcement of their own inability because they have conditioned themselves to see things in that way.

Habit reinforces our attitudes to ourselves and to others, whether those attitudes are good or bad. A person with an expectation of failure is less likely to succeed because the idea that they will fail is already ingrained: habitual. So they try less hard, they are more negative when talking to others about their prospects and - without ever meaning to do so - they become the authors of their own misfortunes.

This is also true of relationships, of course, romantic or otherwise. Someone who believes they are incapable of having friends will tend to drive away anyone who might become a friend. A person who believes their romantic relationships will all fail will be less likely to work at keeping their relationships alive and more likely to walk out in order to bow to what they think of as inevitable.

When we come across new things we have never done before, we are often nervous, edgy and inclined to panic. We have no habits built up to deal with the situation, you see? But if we can suddenly relate it to something we already know, the new thing becomes far less frightening and we suddenly feel a lot more confident in ourselves and our ability to cope.

Habit is in all of us and in everything we do. Bad habits can cause a lifetime of misery, especially if you don't even know you've picked them up. Good habits can create opportunities we would otherwise have missed. Nothing is guaranteed, but understanding your habits is a good first step to any attempts at self improvement or sorting out messes in your life.

A final example

Consider: a man has a basketball hoop set up in a sheltered, screened area so there is no wind. He has a line chalked out and every morning he walks down to the hoop, stands at an exactly marked spot on the line and shoots a ball at the hoop for about half an hour. He has done this for ten years. His reactions are so perfect that he doesn't have to think about it any more. The ball flies easily up and through the hoop, bounces off a board he has positioned below and lands back in his hands for another throw. Thu-thump-thump. Like clockwork, morning after morning, day after day.

One morning, the neighbours kid, being something of a practical joker, rubs out the line and re-inscribes it half a foot back from where it was.

What do you think the chances are that the man will get the ball in the hoop when he comes down and starts throwing?

That's habit. Makes you think, doesn't it?

[Elliot Kane]

Which leads us inevitably to...

The Decision making Process

Every time that any of us makes a decision, however casual or momentous that decision might be, there are five MAIN factors involved in our thinking process. Each of these plays a part in determining the final choice we will make, and each interacts upon the other in a rather complex swirl of conflicting data.

Intelligence determines the number of available options we see before us. It can be restricted in its suggestions by all of the other factors, but it is the first step, because without seeing a choice we can make no decision.

Desire next steps into the equation. How much do we want a certain outcome - and how blind will it make us to the choices we prefer not to see? Desire both increases our chance of making one choice over another, and restricts our ability to see choices that do not conform to what we want.

Fear next raises its ugly head. Do we dare to take the step we want to take, or do we instead seek a safer path? Is there a way to get to what we want safely, or will we have to try to face down our fear? Fear can cause a drawing back from many decisions, and can close off many options as being 'too dangerous'.

Willpower now steps in. It can force down fear, over-ride desire and force our way to an outcome that we either want or feel we should want. If it is strong enough.

Last but never least is Habit, which has a significant interaction on every other aspect of the decision making process. It over-rides intelligence by speaking with the voice of experience: if we have done something a thousand times in the same way, we will likely do it that way again. It can neuter desire through either repeated failure or repeated success, and destroy fear by familiarity. It is the sole way to create and sustain willpower, which does not come out of nowhere and nothing, but must be nurtured. For this reason, habit is the prime human motivator.

***

To take a minor and a major example:

Decision: Shall I go to the park today?

Intelligence says: You don't have to do anything else, but you could go to a dozen other local or near-local places of interest if you wanted.

Desire says: I like the park. I want to go.

Fear says: It might rain. You're gonna get soaked.

Willpower says: So what? It's only rain. You can deal.

Habit says: You go to the park a lot. Experience tells you it's a nice safe plce that you like. You know rain. You can handle it. Let's go.


Decision: Shall I agree to a proposal of marriage?

Intelligence says: You can. It's an option, but there are others. You can say you are not ready yet, or not sure it's a good idea yet. You can suggest cohabitation instead. You might go for a long engagement. Or you could decide this is not the person for you and end it now.

Desire says: Booya! Score! Go, go go! Say yes!

Fear says: Are you really sure? This could all go wrong, and in so many ways. When you split, there will be a lot more acrimony, plus all the trauma of divorce, losing a load of things, friends choosing sides... Is that what you want?

Willpower says: If this is The One, go for it. If not, don't. Either way, stick to it.

Habit says: You have known this person a long time. You are used to their company, and they are your best friend, too. The relationship is clearly one that works. I object to change, but I like stability. If this makes things more stable, I like it.

***

Which is pretty much how it works, except that if you really hear them all talking to you in voices like that you need help ;D

[Elliot Kane]

But are we really who we think we are? Not so much...

Identity

Who we are is very much a matter of perception. Your idea of who I am is very different to my idea of who I am, and were we to ask someone else, they would give yet another - and probably very different - opinion. No two people will ever have quite the same idea of who anyone else is.

This is because identity is the ultimate creation of human sentience - a detailed webwork of Subjective and Objective Reality around which we base everything we believe to be true.

Just on the most basic level, you 'know' your name - yet what is a name? Is it truly any more than a label placed upon you by others? Most of us have more than one, yet we do not think that being 'Joe Bloggs' is any different to being 'Joseph Bloggs'. 'Joe' is simply a shortened form, and we tell ourselves it is the same name... But why? Why do we need this label in order to even begin to see ourselves? And why is it that shortened forms or nicknames are somehow not as real as our given name?

From the first days of our lives, we begin to see ourselves by the connections we have with others. We draw security and the beginnings of our identity from identifying 'Mother' and 'Father'. Not in any rational sense, but in the way that those two adults will be the first other people with whom we have regular contact, and thus the first from whom we begin to learn how to view not just the world, but also ourselves.

As we begin to learn words, so we begin to learn how to think (For humans think in words, and without them we are lost). And one of the first words we learn will be our own name. This secures our place in the world, not just in how we see ourselves, but in how we see our relationship to those around us.

"I am Joseph Bloggs, the son of Peter Bloggs and Mary Bloggs. By our shared last name, I know I am one with my parents; that we 'belong'. That we are family."

Language is the ultimate tool for thought created by humanity; and the ultimate and most important lie - that noises have meaning beyond what we give them. We name everything so that we can explain it even if we cannot yet understand it - and ultimately so that we can identify it to each other. This is why we name ourselves and each other, and also why we place such importance in names.

We identify everything by its name. Thus, without a name, we cannot truly begin to identify ourselves.

As 'Joe' grows up, he starts to learn and experience things. He will filter those experiences through his perceptions according to a whole list of factors:

* how well his intelligence allows him to understand the experience
* how accurately his senses allow him to perceive the experience
* how he feels about the experience
* how past experiences have taught him to react to this new experience
* how much knowledge he has about what is happening
* how important the experience is to him

Thus, 'Joe' will place every new experience in his mind according to the importance he places upon it, and it will add to his sense of the world.

From our experiences, our thoughts, our feelings - and most importantly how we perceive all of those things and react to them - we begin to understand who we are, and ultimately our place within the world. Or at the least, we believe we do, which is the same thing for most of us. Thus to experience is also, in many ways, to become - as we build the habits and patterns of thought (Also likely habitual) that will determine who we are for the rest of our lives.

We live, after all, in a 'Reality' that is not wholly of one part. Our own Subjective Reality is often more important to us than anything else, as it is the primary filter through which we view the world.

In later life, if 'Joe' were to visit a psychologist, his 'mental problems' - unless they are the result of some physical ailment - will be 'cured' simply by causing a shift in his Subjective Reality. Nothing will really change by talking to a psychologist except the way that he sees things. He won't truly be a new person; he will just see himself as one.

Because when it comes to identity, perception is everything.

We are not who we think we are: we are who we are in the habit of believing ourselves to be.

[Elliot Kane]

The Importance of Perception

By now those of you who have read a few of my theories will have seen one common thread that runs through all of them: they are all concerned with the way we perceive the world, both individually and in groups.

We define who we are, both singly and as a species, by the way we perceive our world. What we consider to be 'right' and 'wrong'; who we consider ourselves to be; what we think of each other - all of these things are infinitely mutable. As such we may improve ourselves immeasurably in many ways simply by effecting a change in the things that we believe to be true.

This is the heart of Humanology: the knowledge that people can effect a tremendous positive change in ourselves and in the world around us simply by altering the way we choose to perceive things, and by sharing those perceptions with others.

If, for example, someone believes the world is a wonderful place filled with fantastic opportunity then for them it will likely be so, because their attitude will convince those they interact with and they themselves will put in more hard work and effort than someone who believes they are doomed to fail because the world hates them. Hard work and a positive attitude will often lead to success, and thus to confirmation that the world is indeed a wonderful place filled with fantastic opportunity.

By contrast, the person who believes everyone and everything is out to get them will likely simmer with resentment and suspicion, which will cause those they interact with to gain a negative impression of them. Believing they are doomed to fail, they will try less hard, give up more easily, and when they do fail it will confirm their belief that the world hates them and they have no chance.

Needless to say, neither attitude is true - if such a thing as 'true' even exists in what is after all a matter of opinion! - but the first attitude is a lot more healthy for the individual involved than the second is. A lot better for society, too, as those who believe the world hates them are more likely to become violent criminals than those who believe the world loves them. Crime - and violent crime especially - is a rejection of the values of the society in which the criminal lives, after all.

A cohesive social structure which grants both freedom and responsibility to its citizens and encourages the growth of tight-knit family groups and communities is far stronger than one which does not for the simple fact that such groups will ensure that the values of the society are properly taught to each succeeding generation. How we perceive human relationships is almost entirely derived from the values and attitudes of our parents and those who surround us while we grow - and our perceptions of the society in which we live is also strongly influenced by (and in many cases entirely dependent on) the same groups.

Our perception of reality is unique to each of us, but derived entirely from the things we have learned or experienced and the ways in which we have interpreted and thus reacted to them.

Worst of all, we learn and experience a great deal in childhood, when we are totally unequipped to deal with anything we do not understand. Children are sponges who soak things up without question, and a wrong idea that takes hold in formative years can be extraordinarily hard to shift because the cause is often unremembered but the wrong idea becomes like an article of faith; an unquestioned truth.

Our perception of the world through adult eyes is thus far too often the result of things we did not know how to question or understand as children and thus have fallen into the habit of thinking of as truths.

Many lies are thus passed down through generations, unquestioned, because the race as a whole is as susceptible to habit as any individual member.

If you want proof, ask yourself why 'freedom' and 'democracy' are so often used in the same sentence as if they are synonymous terms. They have completely different and unconnected meanings, yet the one is used as if it belongs with the other. Why? This isn't logical or even rational: it is habitual belief.

If you prefer a less emotive subject, look at that well known paradox: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" It's not really a paradox at all once you forget what generations of people have believed - indeed, the answer is both simple and obvious. Another bad habit!

But that's people. We build our societies on consensus and on habits that have grown up through many generations unquestioned; through collective perception. And we tailor our own individual perceptions to fit into the world in the role we perceive for ourselves in it, be it as conformist or rebel or something in between.

Nonetheless, it is also true that understanding brings control. Knowing how we develop our habitual methods of thinking - of perceiving ourselves and others - it is possible to break those habits, to challenge those perceptions, and thus to become better people thereby.

You now have the knowledge. What you do with it will depend entirely upon your own perceptions...

[Elliot Kane]

Nearly done, believe it or not. You should now be able to fully apply this:

Elliot's Guide To Psychology

Anyone who tells you that there are cast iron rules to the art of psychology is lying. Every single one of us is very different to every other, and the way we interpret various stimuli and react to them is thus also very different. Put some people in a high pressure environment and they will love it, while others buckle under the unwanted stress. Neither has anything wrong with them, they are merely different people.

There are, however, a number of guidelines that can be used to begin the process of understanding our fellow human beings. The would-be psychologist should, however, be aware that any or all of these might prove false in the case of any single individual.

This guide is not a quick route to instant brilliance, but the first steps on a process of learning.


Know The Parents

The strongest single influence in our lives is that of our parents, or parental figures. We learn about human relationships from them, and our relationships with them will guide us in our relationships with others. Thus the first step in knowing someone is to know how they relate to their parents, and how their parents relate to each other.

Good parents who have a close and loving relationship raise the most stable and confident children. This is simple fact. 'Good' being defined in this case as married, stable, and there for the child when needed as far as is possible, but not over protective or allowing the child to be burdened with their fears. Good parents encourage the child to grow, and to have confidence in themselves and their own abilities. To benefit fully from this, the child must also be close to the parents.

Not that it always works, as there are many other influences on a child, but so far as an 'ideal' model exists, this is it. Having lots of money does not automatically make for a 'good' home. Parental attitude & availability is paramount in ensuring the emotional wellbeing of the child.

The further away the family home moves from this model, the less confidence and self-esteem the adult it grows into is likely to have.

A child who is closer to one parent is also likely to favour friends of the sex of the favoured parent, so a 'Daddy's Girl', for example, will likely have a lot of male friends and be a tomboy when young, whereas a 'Mummy's Girl' will definitely favour female friends and be a 'girly girl'. The ideal combination is, of course, a mixture of the two, resulting in a child who is at ease in the company of either sex.

Because children learn about adult relationships from their parents, the more troubled the relationship of the parents (Or parent) the more likely that the child will grow to have relationship problems themselves. Sometimes this will be because they are trying to escape becoming their parents and trying too hard, while at other times it will be because they see their parents' model as the normal one to follow.

All children conform to those areas of their parents lives that they approve of, and rebel against the rest. This is because we seek our parents' approval, but do not wish to become them. Complete rebellion - an utter rejection of the parents' values in every regard - is usually the result of mental, emotional or physical abuse - though not always. The influence of outside elements is always stronger when parental influence is weak, such as with frequently absent or uncaring parents.

Revelation, in the form of trauma or tragedy, can also send the child on a very different path which may have nothing to do with the parents at all.


Parent to Parent

As a rough guide, a few of the effects of various parental behaviour types can be as follows:

Parents always quarrelling = relationships are seen as misery, and unneccessary trauma.

Single parent, no significant others after the departed parent = child will be awkward with members of opp sex, but very good with their own children.

Single parent, many significant others = child will likely view the other sex as disposable, and consider relationships to be naturally temporary.

Unmarried parents, otherwise perfect = will be slightly less confident than with married parents, but otherwise no real difference. Lack of shared names with one parent damages feeling of family unity.

Parents split as one (Or both) find(s) new partner(s) = Child will regard relationships as transitory, or seek to replace the 'lost' parent in their own relationships.

Parents are distant or always absent = child will seek love and approval elsewhere, often being very needy.

One parent is very dominant = the child will see this as 'normal' and seek to emulate in its own relationships.

This could carry on for a long time, but I think you get the idea. However the parents act in their relationships, the child will react. A child may hate or love its parents, but we are never indifferent - and where our parents are concerned, we are always their children.

Knowing the parents, however, is only the first step.

Note that a child who feels abandoned will seek to prove to the absent parent(s) that they were wrong to abandon so gifted/worthy an offspring. This can create some very strong willed people, who nonetheless have a deep need for love and approval.


Self Definition

We all see ourselves as either 'belonging' or 'not belonging' to the social groups around us. It is this perception that determines our reactions, not the reality.

A member of an ethnic minority might regard themselves as fully belonging to the society they live in because they are an important member of the community as a whole, whereas a member of an ethnic majority may regard themselves as an outcast because they have little in common with those around them beyond skin colour. The former is likely to be far happier than the latter, and far more confident in themselves, because we all like to feel that we belong, and that we are valued by those around us.

Even those who like to feel they are different usually like to group with others who are like themselves - belonging in their group, while rejecting the values of the wider society. We are, at heart, communal creatures.


The influence of peers and mentors

Obviously, the weaker the influence of the parents on us, the stronger the influence of others as we grow and gain an idea of who and what we are. A child who is always told that they are useless will believe it, yet may still blossom under the guidance of a mentor, or gain confidence in the approval of their peer group.

A good mentor acts as a kind of surrogate parent, while a good peer group supports its members. A bad mentor is one who holds undue influence, and is frequently on a power trip, while a bad peer group is one that leads its members into frequent bouts of behaviour that is destructive to them and to those around them.

A man who requires the approval of his peer group in order to act is obviously lacking in self confidence, while a man who can take difficult decisions on his own is most likely very confident - at least in the area where he is making the decision. Women usually make decisions by discussion with a peer group, so this is no indication of confidence with them.

Confidence in both sexes displays itself by quiet calm. The louder the person, the less confidence they have in themselves.


The End of The Beginning

Once you have the bare threads - the influence of parents and peers, the place your examinee sees for themselves in the society or group(s) that they inhabit, you are almost ready to take the first step towards understanding them. The only thing remaining is to assess their intelligence levels, because a smarter person sees more options for themselves, and is more likely to craft their own destiny.

Beyond this point, you must follow the twisting threads of their lives to date in order to truly understand them.

And above all, never assume that what is true of any single individual will ever be true of another. Lives - and people - are far too complex for that.

Added Note: Cohabitation (As opposed to marriage) usually occurs where one or both partners have doubts about the permanence of the relationship or have serious commitment issues. The latter is usually - but not always - a male problem. In any case, this attitude (Subconscious or otherwise) may convey itself to the child and affect their own view of relationships.

[Elliot Kane]

And understand why this is the way it is:

How To Change The World

S/he who genuinely wishes to change the world must always remember one thing: you won't see the full effects in your lifetime. That might sound harsh, but it is nonetheless true. One cannot create vast social or technological upheaval, unite nations under a common banner or otherwise alter the way people live their entire lives in what is, in historical terms, a mere eyeblink. If you are not careful, you may even create a set of effects that is highly detrimental to all your ambitions and the change you send into the future may be one that horrify you, if only you knew.

Does any of that mean that the future cannot or should not be redirected? Not at all! Merely that we should keep an eye not just on the prize but on what humans are likely to do with it once they have it.

Did you know, for example, that dynamite was invented for use in mining and its poor inventor never dreamed men would ever use it on each other. It takes a particular kind of genius to be at once so clever that you create an entirely new means of blowing things up and so stupid that you think people won't use it to kill each other. Beware of such naeive assumptions. What others do with your creations still falls back ultimately on your shoulders.

With that in mind, it is time to begin...


The Art Of Generational Change

In childhood and young adulthood, we humans learn the things that most if not all of us will hold to be true and 'normal' for the whole of our lives. We learn such things as our own nationality, our religious position, our cultural and sociological taboos and the technology most prevalent in our culture at the time. In other words, we learn everything that is 'normal' and will remain 'normal' for the rest of our lives. No matter how much our world may change, our guiding star will always be the things we 'know' to be true and we will distrust or at the least be deeply suspicious of anything that is too great a change. It will feel unnatural and, if it goes against cultural taboos we have grown up with, we may even find ourselves resisting it for no reason other than that we are used to the status quo.

Anyone who truly wishes to change the world must therefore seek to convince not their peers, but rather the younger generations and, better yet, generations not yet born. A generation which grows up accepting your ideas as 'normal' may still reject them but at the very least they will not do so out of fear of the unknown.

Once you have achieved the level of 'status quo', the coming generations will simply accept your idea as 'the way things are' and you will get the full effect working for you, but until your idea reaches the level of 'common knowledge' it is an uphill struggle all the way.

All of this means two things: dissemination of the idea is important, but over-selling or trying to force it is unbelievably stupid. If enough people agree with you, it may even be tempting to impose your will upon the world to try to make it a 'better' place, but the perils there are both huge and obvious. You entrench resistance and make opposition into a thing that is handed down to the coming generations


Avoiding The Pendulum Effect

Moving too fast creates resistance and, over time, a backlash becomes inevitable that might wipe out all the things you hoped to accomplish and possibly even set you in a worse place than square one. This is usually known as The Pendulum Effect, and it can be most unforgiving for those who fall foul of it. It is why the creation of makeshift nations results in warfare, strife and mostly the eventual separation of the 'nation' into its more natural parts.

For a very recent example, look at Czechoslovakia. A country created entirely by fiat of the UN, it comprised two ethnically and culturally diverse peoples, the Czechs and the Slovaks, who viewed themselves as being two different peoples and, thus, two different nations. The instant they were out from under the heel of a leader who could compel them to remain together, what happens? they split apart. Because the main place where any nation has its true existence is in the minds and hearts of its people. And if those people do not see a nation where the borders are on the map, it is ultimately the map that must give way.

It is worth noting at this point that ethnicity, while a factor, is not so huge as some may imagine. Cultural and national identity is overwhelmingly more important. An Englishman who lives in Germany, for example, may always see himself as an Englishman first and thus will never in his heart become a German, despite the close ethnic ties between the two peoples. Conversely, the USA declared independence from Britain despite close cultural and ethnic ties because in their hearts the people living there had become American rather than British. Once peoples see themselves as being separate from each other, they become so.

But to return to the main subject at hand, the way to avoid The Pendulum Effect is simply to put the idea out there and allow people to decide for themselves. once the idea becomes common currency, it will be debated without the fear or entrenched resistance a diktat may evoke and people will make up their own minds. If your idea is a good one, consensus will slowly form and civil organisations may even campaign for its adoption. Usually this does take a vested interest to exist, it must be said, but where an idea is good enough the vested interest is inbuilt.

The best example here is surely the internet. It is simply an idea whose time has come. There is resistance from those who do not trust it or find it unfamiliar, but there is now a generation growing to whom the idea of NOT having it is unthinkable, because it has been a natural part of their lives from the very beginning. They know that yes, there are drawbacks, but there is none of the unease of unfamiliarity or the resistance to change that many of the 40-and-up generations feel towards it.

Some might argue at this point that surely Sir Tim has seen his invention reach fruition in his lifetime and thus that my thesis is wrong, but in truth he has not. The battle for control of the vast information source that is the web has barely begun, not least because almost every govt knows little of it or its capabilities. Right now, it looks like a useful toy but it is far more. The full flowering will simply not occur until most of the world's population is raised to accept it as normal and has the instincts and the knowledge to start using it in ways even Sir Tim may never have imagined. Indeed, I would argue that the internet age has barely taken its first toddling steps upon the world stage.


The Avalanche Effect

The best and most workable method for changing the world can thus be described in this fashion: in your lifetime, you will kick a pebble down a mountain. If you kick it right, you will see it start to move other pebbles and maybe some bigger stones. It'll build momentum. Over time, more stones move and ultimately, long after you are dead, the front of the mountain comes off and reveals a whole new mountain face underneath. If you've done it right, it's a more scenic view. If not, you just created massive problems. So be careful which pebble you kick!