# data[].attributes.headline
Our intuition tell us to choose cooperation vs. selfishness

# data[].attributes.subject
Our intuition tell us to choose cooperation vs. selfishness

# data[].attributes.body
“If human nature is something we must be born with, then we may be neither good nor bad, cooperative nor selfish. But if human nature is simply the way we tend to act based on our intuitive and automatic impulses, then it seems that we are an overwhelmingly cooperative species, willing to give for the good of the group even when it comes at our own personal expense.”-experiment study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When it really comes down to it-when the chips are down and the lights are off-are we naturally good? That is, are we predisposed to act cooperatively, to help others even when it costs us? Or are we, in our hearts, selfish creatures?

This fundamental question about human nature has long provided fodder for discussion. Augustine's doctrine of original sin proclaimed that all people were born broken and selfish, saved only through the power of divine intervention. Hobbes, too, argued that humans were savagely self-centered; however, he held that salvation came not through the divine, but through the social contract of civil law. On the other hand, philosophers such as Rousseau argued that people were born good, instinctively concerned with the welfare of others. More recently, these questions about human nature-selfishness and cooperation, defection and collaboration-have been brought to the public eye by game shows such as and the UK's Golden Balls, which test the balance between selfishness and cooperation by pitting the strength of interpersonal bonds against the desire for large sums of money.

But even the most compelling televised collisions between selfishness and cooperation provide nothing but anecdotal evidence. And even the most eloquent philosophical arguments mean noting without empirical data.

A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher's kaleidoscope or a TV producer's camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale-a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician-interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse-our first instinct -is to act selfishly or cooperatively.

This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought-identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior-selfishness or cooperation-is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?

To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency-selfishness or cooperation-predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.

The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the " prisoner's dilemma" and a " public goods game "), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly-opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group-or cooperatively-opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster-that is, more intuitive-decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower-that is, more reflective-decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate-that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally "good" creatures after all.

The researchers followed up these correlational studies with a set of experiments in which they directly manipulated both this apparent influence on the tendency to cooperate-processing speed-and the cognitive mechanism thought to be associated with this influence-intuitive, as opposed to reflective, decision-making. In the first of these studies, researchers gathered 891 participants (211 undergraduates and 680 participants from a nationwide sample) and had them play a public goods game with one key twist: these participants were forced to make their decisions either quickly (within 10 seconds) or slowly (after at least 10 seconds had passed). In the second, researchers had 343 participants from a nationwide sample play a public goods game after they had been primed to use either intuitive or reflective reasoning. Both studies showed the same pattern-whether people were forced to use intuition (by acting under time constraints) or simply encouraged to do so (through priming), they gave significantly more money to the common good than did participants who relied on reflection to make their choices. This again suggests that our intuitive impulse is to cooperate with others.

Taken together, these studies-7 total experiments, using a whopping 2,068 participants-suggest that we are not intuitively selfish creatures. But does this mean that we our naturally cooperative? Or could it be that cooperation is our first instinct simply because it is rewarded? After all, we live in a world where it pays to play well with others: cooperating helps us make friends, gain social capital, and find social success in a wide range of domains. As one way of addressing this possibility, the experimenters carried out yet another study. In this study, they asked 341 participants from a nationwide sample about their daily interactions-specifically, whether or not these interactions were mainly cooperative; they found that the relationship between processing speed (that is, intuition) and cooperation only existed for those who reported having primarily cooperative interactions in daily life. This suggests that cooperation is the intuitive response only for those who routinely engage in interactions where this behavior is rewarded-that human "goodness" may result from the acquisition of a regularly rewarded trait.

Throughout the ages, people have wondered about the basic state of human nature-whether we are good or bad, cooperative or selfish. This question-one that is central to who we are-has been tackled by theologians and philosophers, presented to the public eye by television programs, and dominated the sleepless nights of both guilt-stricken villains and bewildered victims; now, it has also been addressed by scientific research. Although no single set of studies can provide a definitive answer-no matter how many experiments were conducted or participants were involved-this research suggests that our intuitive responses, or first instincts, tend to lead to cooperation rather than selfishness.

Although this evidence does not definitely solve the puzzle of human nature, it does give us evidence we may use to solve this puzzle for ourselves-and our solutions will likely vary according to how we define "human nature." If human nature is something we must be born with, then we may be neither good nor bad, cooperative nor selfish. But if human nature is simply the way we tend to act based on our intuitive and automatic impulses, then it seems that we are an overwhelmingly cooperative species, willing to give for the good of the group even when it comes at our own personal expense.

Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the Boston Globe. He can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com or Twitter @garethideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scientists Probe Human Nature--and Discover We Are Good, After All

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent studies find our first impulses are selfless

# data[].attributes.headline
Evil can come in many forms such as racism. No one is born racist, it is taught.

# data[].attributes.subject
Evil can come in many forms such as racism. No one is born racist, it is taught.

# data[].attributes.body
“ No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his religion, or his background. People must learn to hate , and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than the opposite.”- Nelson Mandela

# data[].attributes.headline
Humankind is inherently good but can be corrupt through evil

# data[].attributes.subject
Humankind is inherently good but can be corrupt through evil

# data[].attributes.body
“People in their natural state are basically good. But this natural innocence , however, is corrupted by the evils of society.”- Jean Jacques Rousseau

# data[].attributes.headline
Being inherently good or evil has everything to do with how you were raised and intentions

# data[].attributes.subject
Being inherently good or evil has everything to do with how you were raised and intentions

# data[].attributes.body
“tightly bound into the nature of our developing minds is the ability to make sense of the world in terms of motivations, and a basic instinct to prefer friendly intentions over malicious ones. It is on this foundation that adult morality is built.”- yale experiment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fundamentally speaking, are humans good or bad? It's a question that has repeatedly been asked throughout humanity. For thousands of years, philosophers have debated whether we have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, or a basically bad nature that is kept in check by society. Psychology has uncovered some evidence which might give the old debate a twist.

One way of asking about our most fundamental characteristics is to look at babies. Babies' minds are a wonderful showcase for human nature. Babies are humans with the absolute minimum of cultural influence - they don't have many friends, have never been to school and haven't read any books. They can't even control their own bowels, let alone speak the language, so their minds are as close to innocent as a human mind can get.

The only problem is that the lack of language makes it tricky to gauge their opinions. Normally we ask people to take part in experiments, giving them instructions or asking them to answer questions, both of which require language. Babies may be cuter to work with, but they are not known for their obedience. What's a curious psychologist to do?

Fortunately, you don't necessarily have to speak to reveal your opinions. Babies will reach for things they want or like, and they will tend to look longer at things that surprise them. Ingenious experiments carried out at Yale University in the US used these measures to look at babies' minds. Their results suggest that even the youngest humans have a sense of right and wrong, and, furthermore, an instinct to prefer good over evil.

How could the experiments tell this? Imagine you are a baby. Since you have a short attention span, the experiment will be shorter and loads more fun than most psychology experiments. It was basically a kind of puppet show; the stage a scene featuring a bright green hill, and the puppets were cut-out shapes with stick on wobbly eyes; a triangle, a square and a circle, each in their own bright colours. What happened next was a short play, as one of the shapes tried to climb the hill, struggling up and falling back down again. Next, the other two shapes got involved, with either one helping the climber up the hill, by pushing up from behind, or the other hindering the climber, by pushing back from above.

Already something amazing, psychologically, is going on here. All humans are able to interpret the events in the play in terms of the story I've described. The puppets are just shapes. They don't make human sounds or display human emotions. They just move about, and yet everyone reads these movements as purposeful, and revealing of their characters. You can argue that this "mind reading", even in infants, shows that it is part of our human nature to believe in other minds.
Great expectations
What happened next tells us even more about human nature. After the show, infants were given the choice of reaching for either the helping or the hindering shape, and it turned out they were much more likely to reach for the helper. This can be explained if they are reading the events of the show in terms of motivations - the shapes aren't just moving at random, but they showed to the infant that the shape pushing uphill "wants" to help out (and so is nice) and the shape pushing downhill "wants" to cause problems (and so is nasty).

The researchers used an encore to confirm these results. Infants saw a second scene in which the climber shape made a choice to move towards either the helper shape or the hinderer shape. The time infants spent looking in each of the two cases revealed what they thought of the outcome. If the climber moved towards the hinderer the infants looked significantly longer than if the climber moved towards the helper. This makes sense if the infants were surprised when the climber approached the hinderer. Moving towards the helper shape would be the happy ending, and obviously it was what the infant expected. If the climber moved towards the hinderer it was a surprise, as much as you or I would be surprised if we saw someone give a hug to a man who had just knocked him over.

The way to make sense of this result is if infants, with their pre-cultural brains had expectations about how people should act. Not only do they interpret the movement of the shapes as resulting from motivations, but they prefer helping motivations over hindering ones.

This doesn't settle the debate over human nature. A cynic would say that it just shows that infants are self-interested and expect others to be the same way. At a minimum though, it shows that tightly bound into the nature of our developing minds is the ability to make sense of the world in terms of motivations, and a basic instinct to prefer friendly intentions over malicious ones. It is on this foundation that adult morality is built.
If you would like to comment on this story or anything else you have seen on Future, head over to our Facebook page or message us on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fundamentally speaking, are humans good or bad? It's a question that has repeatedly been asked throughout humanity. For thousands of years, philosophers have debated whether we have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, or a basically bad nature that is kept in check by society.

# data[].attributes.body
“Human nature is evil, and goodness is caused by intentional activity.” (It's what you do with your power that makes you either good or bad.)-Xun Ji

# data[].attributes.body
“Hate and desperation, in particular, have seeds in abuse, hopelessness, isolation, poverty and other injustices. Hate is also taught. But nonviolence and empathy can also be taught and put into action to eliminate these causes.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breaking news alert: People are inherently good, nonviolent | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tragic news raises deep, divided questions about our species. Are people inherently violent? Are some people evil? What is the solution to violence? And our answers are very important.

# data[].attributes.body
“we start from a place of moral purity. But under certain circumstances, we are all capable of doing things to others that are painful and vicious. Some of these acts go beyond our capacity to immediately understand them, and we might label “evil” what is really illness, fear, desperation, hate”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breaking news alert: People are inherently good, nonviolent | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tragic news raises deep, divided questions about our species. Are people inherently violent? Are some people evil? What is the solution to violence? And our answers are very important.

# data[].attributes.headline
Human nature is evil unless taught not to be...Its all about the way you nurture a child 

# data[].attributes.subject
Human nature is evil unless taught not to be...Its all about the way you nurture a child 

# data[].attributes.body
“Man is evil, by nature man is a beast. People have to be educated from childhood, from kindergarten, that there should be no hatred.” (Hate is taught)-Marek Edelman

# data[].attributes.headline
If you water an apple tree with hate it will grow poisonous apples

# data[].attributes.subject
If you water an apple tree with hate it will grow poisonous apples

# data[].attributes.body
I was angry with my friend:

I told my wrath, my wrath did end….

And I watered it in fears,

Night and morning with my tears;.....

.And it grew both day

and night,

Till it bore an apple bright.

And my foe beheld it shine….-A Poison tree by William Blake

# data[].attributes.headline
People have a natural tendency to be kind

# data[].attributes.subject
People have a natural tendency to be kind

# data[].attributes.body
When I first moved here, many people went out of their way to be my friend and make me feel welcomed.