This week, my old friend Hans Achterhuis was interviewed by the Volkskrant, a Dutch “quality” newspaper. Hans was asked to reflect on his career as a prominent Dutch philosopher and how his ideas evolved over time. He admitted that in the past, he had been too optimistic about utopian political ideas and argued that utopian ideas often turn into dystopias because of the inherent risks and contradictions involved in pursuing an ideal society.
It is worthwhile considering his analysis when observing the actual global tendencies in political thinking and the polarization between conservatives and progressives on a cultural and personal level.
His analysis of why utopian visions often turn into disastrous dystopia includes several key points:
The requirement of a perfect social order: Utopian visions often require a perfect social order, which necessitates absolute control and regulation. This can lead to authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, where dissent is not tolerated, and individual freedoms are suppressed to maintain the “perfect” society.
The assumption that human nature can be perfected: Utopian ideas typically assume that human nature can be perfected. Utopists frequently underestimate how much people are inherently flawed and diverse in their needs and desires. Efforts to mold everyone to fit a single ideal often result in coercion and oppression.
Unforeseen consequences of social engineering projects: Implementing utopian ideas can lead to unforeseen negative consequences. Even with the best intentions, social engineering projects can disrupt existing social fabrics and create new forms of inequality or injustice.
Utopianism often advocates radical changes to society. While aiming for harmony and improvement, these drastic transformations can be destabilizing and may provoke resistance, leading to significant conflict and the potential for widespread suffering.
Utopian ideologies tend to be rigid and uncompromising. This inflexibility makes adapting to new circumstances or integrating differing viewpoints difficult, often resulting in conflict and a lack of progress.
This analysis is highly relevant to the basic message in the forthcoming book by Fernando Lanzer and myself about the seven basic worldviews and downward causation.
Interpreting Achterhuis’s message in the context of the seven Worldviews: The urgent need to bridge the differences between Worldviews to solve global problems should not lead to the tendency to promote one dominant Worldview and force others into policies that are not in accordance with their values. An emphasis on perfection, radical change, and ideological purity carries the seeds of dystopia, as it often disregards the pragmatic and pluralistic aspects of human life.
“The urgent need to bridge the differences between Worldviews to solve global problems should not lead to the tendency to promote one dominant Worldview and force others into policies that are not in accordance with their values. An emphasis on perfection, radical change, and ideological purity carries the seeds of dystopia, as it often disregards the pragmatic and pluralistic aspects of human life.”
In our (Fernando and Huib) opinion, discussing utopias is good, and we need more debates about where we want to go as a society. The issue lies in “how to get there”. The warning that in the past, the utopia of Communism turned into bloody revolutions and autocratic governments; and the recent realization that the utopia of a “perfect” Democracy was used to justify the invasion of other countries in order to force them into changing their regime.
It’s always about that change triangle: where we are, where we want to go, and how to get there. We should all have discussions about these three things, but without feeling that disagreements can (or should) be solved by shooting each other.
To avoid unexpected, negative consequences, we promote incrementalism when introducing change. Incrementalism is an approach to change management according to which policies result from a process of step-by-step interaction and mutual adaptation among a multiplicity of actors advocating different values, representing different interests, and possessing different information.
An example of this approach is found in the European Union. In the EU, 5 of the 7 Worldviews are represented. The decision-making is very complicated. Still by incrementalism, what some people call “muddling through”, they succeed in developing common policies.
Interested readers can find more in Huib Wursten and Fernando Lanzer’s publication The EU: The Third Great European Cultural Contribution to the World.
You may have noticed that the European Championship football is happening right now. It is difficult to escape the news in the media. For many people. this is the most important sideshow in their lives.
Because of the media exposure, it is interesting to see society reflected and blown up tenfold in the reports. If a Manager in a top fortune company is making a real mistake, it will seldom lead to weeklong discussions in the media. But a football coach making a mistake. …Well, look at your daily newspaper right now!
A few years ago the FIFA asked me to help them provide research-based frameworks for understanding how Culture influences the interaction between coaches, players, and club owners in a rapidly internationalizing sport. They needed such a framework for worldwide Capacity building for coaches. So, a draft plan was developed….and then Covid happened.
The good news is that interest has been renewed recently. International coaches are starting to realize that issues like leadership, coaching, conflict solutions, and team building take different shapes in different parts of the world.
In this context, it is worthwhile to read the story of a European coach who was asked to be the coach of the Indian National team.
It happened again! In a discussion in New York among members of an informal think tank, I was again confronted with the idea that while we were using the same word, Individualism, we did not at all share the same meaning.
I say again, because it happened so much in my life as an international consultant that I start my presentations usually with an anecdote. In North America, people frequently try to break the ice by discussing sports. They use the words football and hockey. They assume then that we share the same meaning. But I know now that what they are talking about is American Football, which, in my humble opinion, is not football at all. And they are talking about ice hockey, which, for me, is irrelevant. For me, hockey is field hockey.
Individualism is again such a concept. Below is an analysis of some frequent misunderstandings.
Individualism: A Comparative Analysis of Hayek, Rand, and Hofstede
Individualism has been pivotal in various philosophical, economic, and cultural discussions. Despite their diverse backgrounds and disciplines, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Geert Hofstede each provide unique perspectives on individualism. This essay seeks to compare and contrast their views, exploring how each thinker understands and promotes the idea of the individual within society.
1. Friedrich Hayek: The Economic and Political Dimensions
Friedrich Hayek, an Austrian-British economist and philosopher, is renowned for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism. Hayek’s individualism is deeply rooted in his economic theories, particularly his critique of central planning and socialism. He argues that individual freedom is essential for a functioning and prosperous society. In his seminal work, “The Road to Serfdom,” Hayek posits that any form of central planning inevitably leads to a loss of individual freedom and a slide towards totalitarianism. For Hayek, the spontaneous order arising from individuals acting in their own self-interest within a free market is the most efficient and moral way to organize society..
Hayek’s individualism is thus both a political and economic stance. He believes that individuals, given the freedom to make their own choices, contribute to the collective well-being through the market’s invisible hand. This process, according to Hayek, is far superior to any centrally planned economy, which he argues lacks the information necessary to make efficient decisions and ultimately undermines individual liberties
2. Ayn Rand: an Ethical and Philosophical ideology
Ayn Rand, a Russian-American writer and philosopher, offers a more philosophical and ethical perspective on individualism. Her philosophy, Objectivism, places the individual at the center of its moral universe. In her novels, such as Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, Rand champions the idea of the individual as a heroic being whose happiness and creative potential are paramount. She argues that self-interest, rather than altruism, is the highest moral pursuit.
Rand’s individualism is uncompromising and radical. She contends that collectivism, in any form, is inherently oppressive and stifles human potential. Her ideal society is one where individuals are free to pursue their own goals and ambitions without interference from the state or collective demands. In Rand’s view, individual rights are sacrosanct, and the government’s role is merely to protect these rights and ensure that individuals can operate in a free and uncoerced environment.
The core of Rand’s philosophy — which also constitutes the overarching theme of her novels — is that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive. She believed this is the ultimate expression of human nature, the guiding principle by which one ought to live one’s life. In “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,” Rand put it this way:
Collectivism is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases.
you” .
To many of Rand’s readers, a philosophy of supreme self-reliance devoted to the pursuit of supreme self-interest appears to be an idealized version of core American ideals: freedom from tyranny, hard work and individualism. It promises a better world if people are simply allowed to pursue their own self-interest without regard to the impact of their actions on others. After all, others are simply pursuing their own self-interest as well.
Comparing Hayek and Rand
Anglo-Saxon economic theory is mainly based on these principles. In the system of “worldviews” I will analyze later in this article, this is labeled as the “Contest “ view. A rational agent in this system is defined as an individual who is self-interested. A market is a collection of such rational agents, each of whom is also self-interested. Equity/Fairness does not enter into it. David Blanchflower, a Dartmouth professor of economics and former member of the Central Bank of England, laughed out loud when somebody asked, “Is that fair?”
“Economics is not about fairness,” he said. “I’m not going there.”
Comparing the Hayek and Rand perspectives, we see distinct yet overlapping interpretations of individualism. Both advocate for individualism in the context of “Contest” cultures, which are defined by the combination of high Masculinity (see below for context), small Power Distance, and low Uncertainty Avoidance.
Hayek focuses on economic and political freedom as essential for a prosperous society, whereas Rand emphasizes the ethical and philosophical justification for individual rights and self-interest. Both view collectivism as a threat to personal liberty and human flourishing.
A good example of the consequences of this thinking is Margaret Thatcher, who was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990. During those years, she presided over a social revolution in which nationally owned industries were privatized and the welfare state was drastically reduced in size. Here, she speaks of her understanding of the individual’s responsibility.
She is known to have said: “I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless; the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society, and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women, and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people, and people look to themselves first.
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States from 1981 to 1989, was even more radical: ”The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
3. Geert Hofstede: The Cultural Perspective
Geert Hofstede, a Dutch social psychologist, approaches individualism from a cultural dimension. Hofstede’s research in cultural dimensions theory identifies individualism versus collectivism as one of the key dimensions of national cultures. Unlike Hayek and Rand, Hofstede does not advocate for individualism as an ideology but rather analyzes its presence and impact across different societies.
Hofstede’s work reveals significant cultural variations in the degree of individualism. In highly individualist cultures, such as the United States and Western Europe, people are more likely to prioritize personal goals over group objectives and value independence and self-reliance. Conversely, in collectivist cultures, like in Asia, Africa and Latin America, individuals see themselves as part of a larger group and prioritize group harmony and collective well-being.
Hofstede’s findings suggest that individualism is not universally applicable but rather context-dependent. The level of individualism in a society affects various aspects of life, including workplace dynamics, family structures, and educational systems. His work underscores that individualism and collectivism each have their own strengths and weaknesses, influencing how societies function and individuals perceive their roles within them.
The Hofstede dimensions of culture represent a well-validated operationalization of differences between the cultures of present-day nation-states as manifested in dominant value systems.
Four confirmed elements are of utmost importance for understanding that culture has a gravitational influence on behavior:
The definition of culture is about the collective “programming” of the mind that distinguishes one group or category of people from another.” This definition stresses that culture is (1) a collective, not an individual attribute; (2) is not directly visible but manifested in behaviors; and (3) common to some, but not all people. We are talking about the preferences of most people most of the time; (4) – it is about subconscious preferences. Most people are unaware of their programming.-
The cultural dimensions are the outcome of factor analysis. They represent the fundamental issues all human beings everywhere must cope with. Country culture is about how nations differ in their coping approach.
So, the dimensions are not a random collection of factors that emerged from haphazard situations;instead, they reflect the basic value dimensions.
The dimensions are evidence-based by repeated research, validated over 50 years, with regular repeats trying to falsify the outcomes.
Cultural differences are determined by how the dominant majority in different countries address those issues. So, we are talking about the central tendency in a bell curve.
Each country has a ‘score’ on each of the fundamental dimensions, reflecting the central tendency. The scores go, in principle, from 0 to 100. These scores, in turn, provide a ‘picture of a country’s majority culture. Hofstede’s approach is clear, simple, and statistically valid.
This set of 4 value dimensions allows us to describe how culture decisively defines diversity. But please remember, we are talking about central tendencies, not individuals.
Hofstede and Individualism
Individualism versus Collectivism is one of thefour confirmed value dimensions Hofstede found.
In Individualistic cultures, Individual rights and obligations are the center of value preferences. People believe in Universalistic values. Rights and obligations are (or should be) valid everywhere. The rule of law guarantees human rights.
In collectivistic cultures, people belong to in-groups who look after them in exchange for loyalty. The value orientation is particularistic and applicable to people of the in-group. Identity in Collectivist cultures is based on the social network to which one belongs. Collectivism is a value system that emphasizes the importance of group identity and the collective good over the rights and interests of individual members. In collectivist societies, the needs and goals of the group are prioritized over the needs and goals of the individual, and the group is expected to work together for the common good as formulated by the top people. In Individualistic cultures, people identify more as members of voluntary social groups than members of clans.” For collectivistic societies, it is difficult to accept that individuals have the right to decide about moral issues. Religious institutions and their officials represent the traditional values, and they are the only ones in the position to “weigh” new developments like freedom of sexual preference and equal rights for women.
The other 3 value dimensions found by Hofstede are:
Masculinity versus Femininity. This dimension is about motivation.
In masculine cultures, the dominant emphasis is on competition, career, status, “making it”, achievement, and success. The dominant motivation in feminine cultures is cooperation, consensus-seeking, and a focus on equity, solidarity, and quality of life.
Power distance is the extent to which less powerful members of a society accept that power is distributed unequally. People in countries scoring low, like the US, Canada, the UK, Scandinavia, and the Netherlands, are likely to accept ideas like autonomy, empowerment, decentralization, participative decision making and flat organizations. Business schools worldwide tend to base their teachings on low power-distance values. Yet, most countries in the world have a large power distance. In Large power-distance cultures, people accept existential hierarchy and centralized decision-making.
Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) the way people deal with unfamiliar risks. This concerns the need for predictability. The continuum goes from a strong need for predictability to a weak need for predictability.
Because of his repeated research with matched samples, most countries’ scores are now charted.
The awareness is, however, rising that the scores on the four dimensions influence each other.Together, they lead to a “Gestalt “; the whole is more than the sum of the parts. In other words, the whole has ” properties” that cannot be reduced to properties of the parts; in the case of culture, the Gestalt takes the shape of a mental picture of what the world looks like, a worldview. Seven of these worldviews can be identified. For an overview of these worldviews, see: Wursten H. https://culture-impact.net/cultural-dimensions-and-worldviews/
Downward causation
The single dimensions get their real significance from the worldview. In systems theory, Donald T. Campbell (1974) formulated the principle of downward causation: processes at the lower level of a hierarchy are restrained by and act in conformity to the laws of the higher level.
Applying this to the Hofstede dimensions: The way the single dimensions work out is determined by the worldview of “Gestalt”.
Four of the seven 7 worldviews are Individualistic but have totally different interpretations of Individualism.
“Contest”: the combination of (cultural) Masculinity, Low Uncertainty Avoidance and Small Power distance.
Emphasis on Personal Freedom: individualism is often associated with personal liberty and the right to pursue one’s own goals without undue interference.
Entrepreneurial Spirit: There is a strong belief in the self-made individual and the opportunity for upward social mobility through hard work and innovation.
Decentralization: There is a preference for decentralized decision-making and limited government intervention in personal affairs.
Focus on Achievement: Success is often defined in terms of individual achievement and accomplishment, with less emphasis on collective goals.
“Network” : The combination of Femininity, small power distance and low to middle Uncertainty Avoidance.
1. Consensus-Based Politics: Dutch society emphasizes consensus and cooperation, balancing individual rights with collective decision-making.
2. Social Welfare: Strong social safety nets ensure that individualism does not undermine social cohesion and support for all citizens.
3. Equity and social fairness is strongly emphasized
4. Secularism and Pragmatism: Dutch individualism is often pragmatic and secular, focusing on practical solutions and social harmony.
Well-Oiled Machine: the influence of small Power distance and High Uncertainty Avoidance
Balance Between Individual and Collective: The emphasis is on balancing individual rights and responsibilities towards the community or society.
Emphasis on Order and Structure: There is a preference for structured systems and adherence to rules and regulations, which can sometimes constrain individual actions.
Value of Expertise and Qualification: the WOM values specialized knowledge, education, and professional competence, contributing to the collective good.
The Solar System: The influence of Large Power Distance. High Uncertainty Avoidance and Femininity
Intellectual and Cultural Individualism: The system often emphasizes intellectual and cultural pursuits, valuing creativity, originality, quality of life and personal expression.
Emphasis on Equality: individualism is often tempered by a strong emphasis on egalitarian principles, striving for equality and social justice.
State Intervention: There is a historical tradition of state intervention to ensure social welfare and equality, which can sometimes limit individual freedoms in the interest of the common good.
Artistic and Philosophical Influence: French individualism has been historically influenced by the Enlightenment ideals of liberty and reason, as well as existentialist philosophy emphasizing individual freedom and responsibility.
These differences reflect how each culture interprets and prioritizes individualism within its broader societal norms
On 04 March 2024, Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, at the 55th session of the Human Rights Council, gave a global update to the Human Rights Council.
He said: “ The right to peace is the mother of all human rights. Without peace, all other rights are quashed. It is urgent that we devise ways to counter warmongering, fear and the illogic of escalating hatred and hostility – which bring short-term profit to a few while ruining the lives and rights of millions. We need to regain a mindset of peace. This means the art of de-escalation, keeping communication channels open, rebuilding trust, and the long-term work of healing and reconciliation – re-establishing a sense of the interconnectedness and shared destiny of all humanity.
Three of the articles in this special emphasize this mindset of peace.
They do that from different points of view: Gandhi’s ideas, a strong appeal of the Hiroshima survivors group, and the Ubuntu philosophy.
Two articles focus on the big political issues of this moment: the war in Ukraine and the fight between Israel and Hamas. Russian politician Yavlinsky writes about the escalation of hatred and hostility –ruining the lives and rights of millions. In line with the aforementioned Türk, he proposes to de-escalate and stop the killing immediately.
Knip’s article describes a project that aimed to create trust on the ground level by bringing Palestinian and Israeli city leaders together.
This Municipal Alliance for Peace in the Middle East (MAP) was a framework for Israeli-Palestinian municipal dialogue, with contributions from foreign municipalities and their associations and other international actors. After a hopeful start, this project unfortunately failed.
All articles emphasize that idealism is certainly important. However, to solve real-life problems, it is necessary to understand the nature of conflicts. It is a matter of sound reasoning that “In order to build bridges, it is necessary to know where the shorelines are.” Many of these shorelines are cultural. Culture in this context means: strong collective value preferences.
Looking at the articles in this special from a cultural point of view key examples can be found
For instance:
Decision-making is taking different shapes in different cultures.
In some cultures, there is a strong preference for involving stakeholders on the ground level, bottom up decision-making. This is not only tolerated by the powerholders but even promoted. In other cultures (actually in the majority of cultures in the world), top-down decision-making is preferred. not only by the powerholders but also by the others involved. It is seen as an existential fact of life. It is a “must “ to understand that as long as the leaders of these countries do not give consent first, ground-level initiatives are not taken seriously.
Not understanding this, is one of the causes of failures in international cooperation.
Basic motivations for achievement can strongly differ.
In some cultures, like the Anglo-Saxon countries (I refer to this cluster as “The Contest countries”), competition is seen as the basic driver of success. One consequence is the tendency to polarize. In some other cultures, the basic motivation is cooperation and consensus-seeking.
This difference comes back to a basic issue in conflict situations: “What to do with bullies?”
If one of the parties is not willing to follow the rules of law reason and is not willing to negotiate about the content of the differences in interests. What to do if they are using power to overrun the interest of the other partner(s)?
The advice of experienced negotiators is relevant here: don’t start with power games. But if you are confronted with them, know how to play them and defend yourself. This is not natural for consensus-orientated countries.
One recent special element to be solved is what to do with asymmetrical warfare. A situation where a regular army is fighting an adversary hiding among the civilian population.
The direction of loyalty is the next important issue to clarify.
In most cultures, people are supposed to be loyal to their in-group (tribe, ethnic group, religious group, etc.). In return for their loyalty, the in-group takes care of the people. In-group members are not supposed to ventilate individual opinions or openly criticize the in-group ideas. If they do that, they risk being removed from the in-group.
In a limited number of countries, loyalty is to the position and rights of the Individual as an autonomous empowered member of the community.
A well-known issue in the first type of countries is that in case of a conflict the attitude is caught by the phrase: “For my friends everything. For all others the rule of law”.
Time is an important cultural issue
Some cultures are short-term orientated. They aim to hold people accountable for what they are doing by measuring success and failure in an agreed-upon controllable timeframe.
Some cultures are long-term orientated. An example here is the statement by Mao the former leader of the People’s Republic of China. He was asked what he thought about the results of the French Revolution. His answer: “It’s too early to decide”
Taking the cultural context of time and loyalty together.
In an interview in the New York Times, an expert on the Middle East said: “The four most dangerous words in the Middle East are we need to solve the conflict “once and for all”
This is virtually impossible in countries with in-group loyalty as a central cultural driver. The harm done to the in-group by others stays quite long in the collective memory.
As an illustration, a story that is told about the Balkan war. A Bosnian says to a Serb: “Why are you killing our men and children and raping our women?” Says the Serb: “but you did the same to us. You killed our men and children and raped our women.” “But”, the Bosnian said, ”This is 200 years ago” Answer by the Serb: “Can be, but I only heard about it yesterday!”
In the articles of this special you’ll find more examples of cultural misunderstandings. Reading the articles is highly recommended.
From: If you want to build bridges, you have to know where the shorelines are,
Frans de Waal looked at the nature of the role of biological sex and the nature of gender in humans by looking at the behavior of non-human primates. He observed that in the other primates, too, you can speak of gender because they learn certain aspects of their sexualities from each other. For example, the young males watch the adult males and the young females watch the adult females and follow their example. There is also a cultural transmission of how you behave as a male and female. In that sense, gender is a concept that can also be applied to other species. There is evidence that there is biased learning going on. For example, research on orangutans in the forest showed that young females eat exactly the same foods as their Mothers. But young males vary. They sometimes eat foods that the mother never touches. That’s because their models are the adult males they see eating occasionally.
De Waal makes a few points: “There is as much gender diversity in other primates as in humans. Homosexual behavior is very common in primates. I usually call bonobos “bisexual” because I don’t think they make a big distinction between whether they have sex with a male or female. All the gender diversity that we have in human society, transgender people and homosexual orientation, and so on, we can see in the other primates. The interesting part is that they have no trouble with it. I’ve never noticed that they exclude an individual because of this. The tolerance level is a lot higher than in most human societies. But the variation is very similar.” Sex is mostly binary: 99% of individuals are either male or female and there’s a small slice of individuals in between. There are universal sex differences, which we see in all human and primate societies. It’s very hard to argue with some biological background. For example, all young males and primates (including human boys) like to wrestle when they’re young; they like mock fighting, running around, and trying to wrestle each other down. In the young primates, this is a very big bias; the males like to do that and the females don’t like to do that, necessarily. That’s why females often play separately from males. Another thing that’s universal in play behavior is that young females are more interested in infants and dolls in primate and human societies. If you give a doll to a group of chimps, a female will alwayspick it up and care for it. If a male picks it up, he may take it apart and look inside the doll to see what’s in there. But the females will put it on their belly and back, walk around, and care for it. They do the same thing with the infants of other females. The interest of young females in infancy is also a universal human bias, primate bias, and it’s fairly logical because later in life, they will care for offspring for most of their life. Biology or culture? People want to choose between biology and culture. And that’s why you get these discussions with people who say gender is all cultural. There is nothing that is all cultural. That doesn’t exist. Because what is culture? Culture is us influencing each other and we are biological organisms, biological organisms affecting other biological organisms—automatically, biology is in there. There is no pure culture. It doesn’t exist. There is no pure biology either. That doesn’t exist. And that’s why, in biology, we don’t speak about instincts anymore in animals, because everything an animal does is influenced by how it grew up and what it learned in its lifetime, and so on. And so there is no pure biology either. So people want to choose between the two. And they have a false sense of security that they can do that, but you cannot. And so everything we do is influenced by two factors, the environment and our genes, and by the interaction between the two. Masculinity and Femininity is a cultural construct. De Waal: “I usually divide it not by male and female but by masculine and feminine and everything in between. It’s an extremely variable concept. And as I said, it’s probably applicable to other primates, though maybe less well than in humans. But in humans, it is very important to distinguish those two. Gender has to do with how you express your sexuality, your sex role, and how much you follow or don’t follow the dictates of your culture.” But there is a flexibility that can also be seen in the other primates. De Waal givers following example, “chimpanzees and bonobo males, they don’t do anything with the young. The females do everything. The males may occasionally protect them, but that’s all they do. But we know that if a mother loses her life in the forest, and suddenly there is an orphan, we know that sometimes males pick up these orphans and carry them. They adopt them and not just for a couple of days. High-ranking males, like alpha males, may adopt a baby chimp and take care of it for five years. It’s not always expressed, but they have that tendency and that capacity.”
Subconscious learning and biases. Hofstede talks about subconscious learning. De Waal explains it by biased learning: it is aroused more by familiar and similar individuals. In humans, that means individuals of your culture, language, color, etc. We do empathy studies on all sorts of animals nowadays and they always have this social bias built in, which means it’s hard to generate empathy for individuals who are quite different from you, who are distant, who are a different ethnic group, or speak a different language. Then it becomes more difficult for you. But the fact that we have it is really important. And once you have empathy, the capacity for it, you can try to expand it mentally, to expand the rules for in our human moral systems. That’s a cognitive capacity that we have and that’s why we try to do things like that.
