the messiness of human nature

From Rehabilitating Introspection, Phil Roberts, Jr.

Presumably, Mother Nature has gone to a lot of trouble to evolve our capacity for reflective thought precisely because it renders it possible for us to have a fairly good idea of what will be in our long range best interest and, just as crucially, to be able to act upon that information when undertaking a prudent course of action. But if this is so, why then are there motivational states such as fear, anger and sexual arousal, that urge us to engage in random acts of strategic stupidity on those innumerable occasions when, at some later point in time, we end up having to ask ourselves, "Now why did I do that?" If prudence is such hot stuff from an evolutionary standpoint, why isn't Mother making it a bit easier for us to exercise it more prudently?

The answer, I believe, is pretty much what you might expect. The reason the lower emotions seem so out of context with our more reflective concerns is precisely because they are remnants of a prereflective survivalist heritage -- vestigial remains of ancient stimulus response mechanisms which, prior to the advent of prudential insight, were chiefly responsible for perpetuating ourselves and our genetic blueprints. And their lack of continuity with our more reflective concerns is because, at some point in our dark and distant past, survival was not the result of any overall intention or "will" to survive, but simply the non-intentional cumulative effect of a number of independent intentions or "wills" to exhibit stereotypical responses to immediate stereotypical stimuli, but which were probably undertaken with little if any understanding of the overall objective they were “designed” to achieve.

In other words, the reason the lower emotions so often urge us to do stupid stuff is because, in a manner of speaking, they don’t know what they are doing. Their strategic incoherence is due to the fact that the id is not so much an evil monster as a bunch of bungling idiots (Larry, Curly and Moe come to mind), and in which case Freud's mistake was not in positing little men in the brain (the id, ego and superego), as Ryle (1949) and Dennett (1969) have maintained, but in not positing enough of them.

...

3. To further confuse matters, it appears that, in her infinite wisdom, Mother Nature has apparently exapted (jury-rigged) a number of the lower emotions to assist in the shepherding of self-worth (fear of asking for a date or giving a speech, anger over an insult, sex as a basis for endearment, etc.), a task for which they are often understandably illsuited. But then what else would you expect from a blind mechanical process?

overcompensation

I present a sketchy theory of overcompensation here.

Paradigm shifts, fashion, moral sentiment, social and economic theory, religion. They all obey the "Law of Overcompensation".

This law states that (almost) every time we dispense with a perspective on an issue, we overcompensate (or at least have the tendency to).

Behaviorism after introspection. Laissez-faire capitalism after Communism. "Culture" (or Nurture) after Biology (Nature). Relativism after Racism. Modernism after Romanticism. Postmodernism after Realism. New Age after traditional monotheistic religion.

Why do we overcompensate? I think it's because we tend to view perspectives as factions, like in tribal warfare. Our tribal legacy definitely manifests in our argumentation. From "Metaphors We Live By" by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson:

"ARGUMENT IS WAR

Your claims are indefensible.

He attacked every weak point in my argument.

His criticisms were right on target.

I demolished his argument.

I've never won an argument with him.


you disagree? Okay, shoot!

If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out.

He shot down all of my arguments.

It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack. Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war. Though there is no physical battle, there is a verbal battle, and the structure of an argument--attack, defense, counter-attack, etc.---reflects this."

So instead of the logic of the argument prompting a change in perspectives, it is the subjective evaluation of the credence of artificially dichotomized polar-opposite sides of an issue. Whereupon the "winning" side would be absolutely and unequivocally accepted, and the other side absolutely and unequivocally rejected. Thus leading to overcompensation.

Even synthesis (after thesis and antithesis, in Hegel's theory) can overcompensate. Relativism is an example. I'm right. You're right. We are both right (in our own ways, yet absolutely so).

Nature? Haha. Yes but through conscious effort and with awareness, we can (somewhat) ameliorate or avoid overcompensation.