Understanding Human Nature

INTRODUCTION

“The destiny of man lies in his soul.”

– HERODOTUS

The science of human nature may not be approached with too much presumption and pride. On the contrary, its understanding stamps those who practice it with a certain modesty. The problem of human nature is one which presents an enormous task, whole solution has been the goal of our culture since time immemorial. It is a science that can not be pursued with the sole purpose of developing occasional experts. Only the understanding of human nature by every human being can be its proper goal. This is a sore point with academic investigators who consider their researches the exclusive property of a scientific group.

Owing to our isolated life none of us knows very much about human nature. In former times it was impossible for human beings to live such isolated lives as they live today. We have from the earliest days of our childhood few connections with humanity. The family isolates us. Our whole way of living inhibits that necessary intimate contact with our fellow men, which is essential for the development of the science and art of knowing human nature. Since we do not find sufficient contact with our fellow men, we become their enemies. Our behavior towards them is often mistaken, and our judgments frequently false, simply because we do not adequately understand human nature. It is an of t-repeated truism that human beings walk past, and talk past, each other, fail to make contacts, because they approach each other as strangers, not only in society, but also in the very narrow circle of the family. There is no more frequent complaint than the complaint of parents that they cannot  are understand their children, and that of children that they a misunderstood by their parents. Our whole attitude toward our fellow man is dependent upon our understanding of him; an implicit necessity for understanding him therefore is a fundamental of the social relationship. Human beings would live together more easily if their knowledge of human nature were more satisfactory. Disturbing social relationships could then be obviated, for we know that unfortunate adjustments are possible only when we do not understand one another and are therefore exposed to the danger of being deceived by superficial dissimulations.

It is now our purpose to explain why an attempt is made to approach the problem from the standpoint of the medical sciences, with the objective of laying the foundations of an exact science in this enormous field; and to determine what the premises of this science of human nature must be, what problems it must solve, and what results might be expected from it.

In the first place, psychiatry is already a science which demands a tremendous knowledge of human nature. The psychiatrist must obtain insight into the soul of the neurotic patient as quickly and as accurately as possible. In this particular field of medicine one can judge, treat, and prescribe effectively only when one is quite sure of what is going on in the soul of the patient. Superficiality has no place here. Error is followed quickly by punishment, and the correct understanding of the ailment is crowned by success in the treatment. In other words, a very effective test of our knowledge of human nature occurs. In ordinary life, an error in the judgment of another human being need not be followed by dramatic consequences, for these may occur so long after the mistake has been made that the connection is not obvious. Often we find ourselves astonished to see what great misfortunes follow decades after a misinterpretation of a fellow man. Such dismal occurrences teach us the necessity and duty of every man to acquire a working knowledge of human nature.  Our examinations of nervous diseases prove that the psychic anomalies, complexes, mistakes, which are found in nervous diseases are fundamentally not different in structure from the activity of normal individuals. The same elements, the same premises, the same movements, are under consideration. The sole difference is that in the nervous patient they appear more marked, and are more easily recognized. The advantage of this discovery is that we can learn from the abnormal cases, and sharpen our eye for the discovery of related movements and characteristics in the normal psychic life. It is solely a question of that training, ardor, and patience which are required by any profession.

The first great discovery was this: the most important determinants of the structure of the soul life are generated in the earliest days of childhood. In itself this was not such an audacious discovery; similar findings had been made by the great students of all times. The novelty lay in the fact that we were able to join the childhood experiences, impressions, and attitudes, so far as we were capable of determining them, with the later phenomena of the soul life, in one incontrovertible and continuous pattern. In this way we were able to compare the experiences and attitudes of the earliest childhood days with the experiences and attitudes of the mature individual later an in life; and in this connection the important discovery was made that the single manifestations of the psychic life must never be regarded as entities sufficient unto themselves. It was learned that we could gain an understanding of these single manifestations only when we considered them as partial aspects of an indivisible whole, and that these single manifestations could be valued only when we could determine their place in the general stream of activity, in the general behavior pattern- only when we could discover the individual’s whole style of life, and make perfectly clear that the secret goal of his childhood attitude was identical with his attitude in maturity. In short, it was proven with astonishing clarity that, from the standpoint of psychic movements, no change had taken place. The outer form, the concretization, the verbalization of certain psychic phenomena might change, but the fundamentals, the goal, the dynamics, everything which directed the psychic life towards its final objective, remained constant. A mature patient who has an anxious character, whose mind is constantly filled with doubts and mistrust, whose every effort is directed toward isolating himself from society, Shows the identical character traits and psychic movements in his third and fourth year of life, though in their childish simplicity they are more transparently interpreted. We made it a rule therefore to direct the greater part of our investigation to the childhood of all patients; and thus we developed the art of being able, often, to reveal characteristics of a mature Person whose childhood we knew, before we were told of them. What we observe in him as an adult we consider the direct projection of that which he has experienced in childhood.

When we hear the most vivid recollections of a patient’s childhood, and know how to interpret these recollections correctly, we can reconstruct with great accuracy the pattern of his present character. In doing this we make use of the fact that an individual can deviate from the behavior into which he has grown in childhood only with great difficulty. Very few individuals have ever been able to change the behavior pattern of their childhood, though in adult life they have found themselves in entirely different situations. A change of attitude in adult life need not necessarily signify a change of behavior pattern. The psychic life does not change its foundation; the individual retains the same line of activity both in childhood and in maturity, leading us to deduce that his goal in life is also unaltered. There is another reason for concentrating our attention upon childhood experiences we wish to change the behavior pattern. It makes little difference whether we alter the countless experiences and impressions of an individual in maturity; what is necessary is to discover the fundamental behavior pattern of our Patient. Once this is understood we can learn his essential character and the correct Interpretation of his illness. The examination of the soul life of the child thus became the fulcrum of our science, and a great many researches were dedicated to the study of the first years of life. There is so much material in this field which has never been touched nor probed that everyone is in a position to discover new and valuable data which would prove of immense use in the study of human nature.

A method of preventing bad character traits was simultaneously developed, since our studies do not exist for their own sake but for the benefit of mankind. Quite without previous thought, our researches led into the field of pedagogy, to which we have contributed for years. Pedagogy is a veritable treasure trove for anyone who wishes to experiment in it, and apply to it what he has found valuable in the study of human nature, because pedagogy, like the science of human nature, is not to be got out of books, but must be acquired in the practical school of life.

We must identify ourselves with every manifestation of the soul life, live ourselves into it, accompany human beings through their joys and their sorrows, in much the same way that a good painter paints into a Portrait those characteristics which he has felt in the person of his subject. The science of human nature is to be thought of as an art which has many instruments at its disposal, an art closely related to all other arts, and useful to them. In literature and poetry, particularly, of exceptional import. Its first object must be to enlarge knowledge of human beings, that is to say, it must enable us all to acquire the possibility of fashioning for ourselves a better and a riper psychic development.

One of our great difficulties is that we very frequently find people extraordinarily sensitive an just the point of their understanding of human nature. There are very few human beings who do not consider themselves masters in this science even though they have had very few studies preparatory to their degree; and there are even fewer such who would not feel offended if one would demand that they put their knowledge of mankind to the test. Those who really wish to know human nature are only those who have experienced empathy, the worth and value of people through their own that is, through the fact that they also have lived through psychic crises, or have been able to fully recognize them in

others.

From this circumstance arises the problem and the necessity of finding a precise tactic and strategy, and a is more hateful, and nothing will be met with a more critical technique in the application of our knowledge. For nothing glance, than that we should brusquely throw into the face of an individual the stark facts which we have discovered in the exploration of his soul. It might be well to advise anyone very who does not want to be hated that he be careful in this connection. An excellent way to acquire a bad reputation is carelessly to make use of facts gained through a knowledge of human nature, and misuse them, as for instance in the desire to show how much one knows or has guessed concerning the character of one’s neighbor at a dinner It is also dangerous to cite merely the basic truths of this science as finished products, for the edification of someone who does not understand the science as a whole. Even those who do understand the science would feel themselves insulted through such a procedure. We must repeat what we have already said: the science of human nature compels us to modesty. We may not announce the results of our experiments unnecessarily and hastily. This would be germane only to a little child who was anxious to parade himself and show off all the things that he can do. It is hardly to be considered as an appropriate action for an adult.

We should advise the knower of the human soul first to test himself. He should never cast the results of his experiments, which he has won in the service of mankind, into the face of an unwilling victim. He would only be making fresh difficulties for a still-growing science, and actually defeat his purpose! We should then have to bear the onus of mistakes which had arisen from the unthinking enthusiasm of young explorers. It is better to remain careful and mindful of the fact that we must have a complete whole in view before we can draw any conclusions about its parts. Such conclusions, furthermore, should be published only when we are quite certain that they are to someone’s advantage. One can accomplish a great deal of mischief by asserting in a bad way, or at an improper moment, a correct conclusion concerning character.

We must now, before going an with our considerations, meet a certain objection which has already suggested itself to many readers. The foregoing assertion, that the style of life of the individual remains unchanged, will be because an individual has so many, incomprehensible to many experiences in life which change his attitude toward it. We must remember that any experience may have many interpretations. We will find that there are no two people who will draw the same conclusion from a similar experience. This accounts for the fact that our experiences do not always make us any cleverer. One learns to avoid some difficulties, it is true, and acquires a philosophical attitude towards others, but the pattern along which one acts does not change as a result of this. We will see in the course of our further considerations that a human being always employs his experiences to the same end. Closer examination reveals that all his experiences must fit into his style of life, into the mosaic of his life’s pattern. It is proverbial that we fashion our own experiences. Everyone determines how and what he will experience.

In our daily life we observe people drawing whatever conclusions they desire from their experiences. There is the man who constantly makes a certain mistake. If you succeed in convincing him of his mistake, his reactions will be varied. He may conclude that, as a matter of fact, it was high time to avoid this mistake. This is a very rare conclusion. More probably he will object that he has been making this mistake so long that he is now no longer able to rid himself of the habit. Or he will blame his parents, or his education, for his mistake; he may complain that he has never had anyone thing, and who ever cared for him, or that he was very much petted, that he was brutally treated, and excuse his error with an alibi. Whatever excuse he makes, he betrays one that is that he wishes to be excused of further responsibility. In this manner he has an apparent justification and avoids all criticism of himself. He himself is never to blame. The reason he has never accomplished what he desired to do is always someone else’s fault. What such individuals overlook is the fact that they themselves have made very few efforts to obviate their mistakes. They are far more anxious to remain they wish in error, blaming their bad education, with a certain fervor, for their faults. This is an effective alibi so long as to have it so. The many possible interpretations of an experience and the possibility of drawing various conclusions from any single one, enables us to understand why a person does not change his behavior pattern, but turns and twists and distorts his experiences until they fit it. The hardest thing for human beings to do is to know themselves and to change themselves.

Anyone who is not a master in the theory and technique of the science of human nature would experience great difficulty in attempting to educate human beings to be better men. He would be operating entirely an the surface, and would be drawn into the error of believing that because the external aspect of things had changed, he had accomplished something significant. Practical cases show us how little such technique will change an individual, and how all the seeming changes are only apparent changes, valueless so long as the behavior pattern itself has not been modified.

The business of transforming a human being is not a simple process. It demands a certain optimism and patience, and above all the exclusion of all personal vanity, since the individual to be transformed is not in duty bound to be an object of another’s vanity. The process of transformation, moreover, must be conducted in such a way that it seems justified for the one changed. We can easily understand that some one will refuse a dish which would otherwise be very tasty to him if it is not prepared and offered to him in an appropriate manner.

The science of human nature has yet another aspect, which we may call its social aspect. Human beings would doubtless get along with each other better, and would approach each other more closely, were they able to understand one another better. Under such circumstances it would be impossible for them to disappoint and deceive each other. An enormous danger to society lies in this possibility of deception. This danger must be demonstrated to our fellow workers, whom we are introducing to this study. They must be capable of making those upon whom they are practicing their science understand the value of the unknown and unconscious forces working within us; in order to help them they must be cognizant of all the veiled, distorted, disguised tricks and legerdemain of human behavior. To this end we must learn the science of human nature and practice it consciously with its social purpose in view.

Who is best fitted to collect the material of this science, and to practice it? We have already noted that it is impossible to practice this science only theoretically. It is not enough simply to know all the rules and data. It is necessary to transmute our studies into practice, and correlate them so that our eyes will acquire a sharper and deeper view than has been previously possible. This is the real purpose of the theoretical side of the science of human nature. But we can make this science living only when we step out into life itself and test and utilize the theories which we have gained. There is an important reason for our question. In the course of our education we acquire too little knowledge of human nature-and much of what we learn is incorrect, because contemporary education is still unsuited to give us a valid knowledge of the human soul. Every child is left entirely to himself to evaluate his experiences properly, and to develop himself beyond his classroom work. There is no tradition for the acquisition of a true knowledge of the human soul.