"Behavior" - Do you dare to raise your hand and ask questions in class?

Hello, hello~ Hello everyone, I am the host Xiao P

I wonder if you have ever wondered where some stereotypes come from.

For example, boys are better at math, while girls are better at liberal arts.

Or, Americans are more self-interested, while Chinese have more mama's babies and so on.

Will you be curious? No?

Sorry, okay...

Anyway~

We are going to continue the discussion of this book~

We have exhausted all the elements in a person's life that will affect behavior.

Next, we come to those things that were decided before he was born.

Those things existed before he was still a baby, an embryo, not even a fertilized egg!

That is, culture.

Before listening, please subscribe to my program and follow my IG.

Only then can you join our reading club every Wednesday!

OK~

Before discussing the impact of culture on behavior, we must first define what culture is.

Going back to the original question, why do we think men have better math and science abilities than girls?

To be honest, I think this stereotype has pretty much disappeared a long time ago.

It shouldn't be, at least not so obviously, that it's "normal" for men to have sex with men and women to have sex with women.

After all, it is now 2020 0202. It is an era of freedom, an era of the Internet, and an era where no matter what you like to do, you can make money from that thing.

but! This was not the case a few years ago. There were people who studied this matter specifically.

After all, judging from the statistics, boys have higher scores in mathematics! People need a why.

Research results point out that this phenomenon may occur because men’s testosterone, yes, that hormone, testosterone, stimulates areas of the brain related to mathematics.

Since it is related to hormones, then it is related to genes. Since it is related to genes, then basically, it cannot be manipulated by humans?

Remember the plant experiment we talked about in the last episode?

That is to say, scientists in both deserts and rainforests believe that height is greatly affected by genes and only slightly affected by the environment.

But when comparing the data of deserts and rainforests at the same time, we found that the environmental impact is actually greater!

When we just look at, for example, Taiwanese society, or American society, indeed, the data show that there is a significant gap in math scores between men and women, and even when testosterone is given to adults, it improves math scores.

However, when we include Iceland in the study, Iceland is the country that ranks first in terms of gender equality, and we will find out.

In Iceland, girls do better in math than boys.

Just like genes, if our research scope is not broad enough, we will not be able to determine whether the brain gap between men and women is larger, or which country or environment they were born in has a greater impact.

It is meaningless to talk about genes in isolation from the environment.

What this chapter is going to talk about is the environment shaped by humans, our culture.

So what is culture?

I personally feel that the definition of culture is very broad, and it is difficult to clearly define what culture is.

In the words of animal behaviorist, Frans de Waal.

Culture is how we do things and how we think. However, it is transmitted through means other than genetics.

For example, the things you learned from books, the sense of morality your parents taught you, and the moral thoughts you have. As long as it is not your own information, it basically comes from culture.

Human beings have various cultures, and each culture shapes your values ​​and behaviors. This means that even if our genes are exactly the same but we grow up in different cultures, we will develop different ways of doing things. logic.

Let's talk about a few examples so that you can refer to them and feel the differences in behavior that that culture brings to us.

first.

Individualism and collectivism.

Basically, the best comparison is the United States and the Chinese community.

And I personally think that there is a behavior that can directly see the difference.

That means raising your hand to ask questions in class.

I don't know how you guys are, but I was told from a young age that I have the courage to raise my hand to speak, and ask questions if I have any questions!

But who really dares to ask?

At the same time in my mind, will I disturb other students by raising my hand? Will it be delayed until the end of get out of class? What if I ask a stupid question? Since no one asked, I'd better not ask.

Such thoughts

When no one moves, it is natural to conform to the crowd and not want to be special.

And, it does happen that people tend to exclude special people.

The feeling is that the culture just doesn't encourage you to do it, so no matter how much substantive encouragement there is, it's useless.

I think this is the cultural difference, and the difference is not really based on saying to raise your hand all the time, to ask!

It can be solved.

Of course, I didn’t say anything, oh~ Just raise your hand and ask questions, there will be prizes~

Such rewards can change things.

Because the next time there is no reward, no one will raise their hands to ask questions.

As the name suggests.

Individualism focuses on the individual, on oneself, on autonomy, personal achievement and uniqueness.

Collectivism, on the other hand, focuses on the group, focusing on group harmony, interdependence, taking the needs of the group as one's own responsibility, and so on.

Some scientists think so.

The reason why Chinese areas are dominated by collectivism is that in the past, we grew rice as the main crop.

Plants like rice require the cooperation of a lot of manpower to grow. For example, the source of water requires channels and other facilities, and these facilities have to pass through several farmlands. As long as there is one that does not fit in, it will As a result, the farmers behind are also affected, so it is very important to be in a group, and the group is very important, and a collective culture is naturally formed.

So why is the United States individualistic?

This may be related to the fact that the United States is mainly composed of immigrants. People who are willing to leave their country and explore unknown fields are usually less gregarious, and thus have individualism.

Furthermore, it is also possible that wheat is the main crop in the United States, and the cultivation of wheat does not require the cooperation of groups like rice, so there is no hindrance to individualism.

People of these two cultures differ not only in behaviors like raising hands.

Even where you focus your attention makes a difference.

for example,

If you want people of two cultures, explain why the ball rolls?

Orientals pay attention to ball and floor interactions such as friction.

Westerners, on the other hand, start from the characteristics of the ball itself, such as the weight of the ball itself, and so on.

If you show them a picture of a person.

Orientals notice the background behind a person.

Westerners, on the other hand, pay attention to the details of the person himself.

If you force them to pay attention where they wouldn't otherwise, their prefrontal cortex kicks in.

They will start to feel overwhelmed.

The funniest thing is if you ask them to categorize things.

For example, which two are most similar, rabbits, carrots and dogs?

You can think about it yourself~

OK

Orientals will answer rabbits and carrots, because these two can form a food chain relationship.

Westerners are rabbits and dogs, because they are animals.

Orientals pay attention to relationships and the connections between things.

The West pays attention to categories and types.

These two cultures will affect us on many levels, from morality, logic of thinking, empathy, and values. Even down to the point you pay attention to when you look at the photo, it will make a difference.

But can the influence of culture change?

Or is it shaped at birth eternal?

We will discuss this later.

Let's go back to the beginning and talk about the issue of raising hands.

Regardless of whether the influence of culture on people can be changed, I don't think that in that school, in that class, that little boy could muster up the courage to raise his hand and ask questions.

However, there is one thing he can do that allows him to follow the crowd without giving up his curiosity and pursuit of knowledge.

His mother told him that you can write down the questions and ask them again after class~

Maybe collectivism will prevent him from deliberately standing out in class, but he can still rely on other ways to grow himself.

Culture gives you a framework, but you can choose how to face it.

Culture, the environment that existed before we were born, will deeply affect our thinking, logic, and of course, behavior.

For example, descendants of nomadic peoples have a so-called honor culture, which also emphasizes politeness, kindness to others, and hospitality to strangers. After all, in the nomadic life, I am also a strange traveler in the eyes of others.

And this culture must retaliate when itself or the family is offended.

This may be due to the fact that for nomadic people, their properties are all movables, unlike agricultural societies where there are many real estates.

If they don't defend themselves, their belongings can easily be taken away from them.

This kind of honor culture also appears in the American South. They attach great importance to honor. Personal and family honor are more important than life.

I find it quite interesting to observe the differences between cultures.

And sometimes, culture differs not only among different ethnic groups, but also in cities and villages.

People often say that people in cities are relatively indifferent. There are many people in cities, and the density of people is very high, but the distance between people is farther.

But I think that urban people seem indifferent because there are too many people around, and you can't be warm to everyone, but it is not so difficult for you to be warm to everyone in the countryside.

In addition, public morality is usually particularly important in cities because your actions will affect more people.

Cities also place more emphasis on cooperation between strangers.

In rural areas, people tend to ask acquaintances for help.

Perhaps, we can say that the city is a culture of strangers.

The countryside is a culture of acquaintances.

We talked about several cultural differences, of course, these are just a few.

However, all cultures have one thing in common.

That's religion.

In Harari's great history of mankind, it is mentioned that the most special ability of human beings, the reason why human beings are human beings, is that people can imagine, we can imagine a non-existent thing, such as gods, religions, and even countries, and For this reason, she threw her head and sprinkled her blood.

No matter what kind of culture, there are supernatural gods, whether they are multiple gods or one god,

There are hundreds of differences in religions, but the common denominator is that all cultures have religions.

Religion, in turn, affects culture.

when we want to study a culture.

Religion is the best target to attack.

If you observe religious dogma, you can know what values ​​a culture cares about.

But what about studying cultures whose religion we don’t know?

The book goes on to talk about an issue that I think is very complex.

At first I couldn't understand what was being said.

The debate between Hobbes and Rousseau, starting on p.392.

When I first saw this, I really didn't know what I was talking about.

Hobbes? Rousseau? I seem to have heard of these two people. If I remember correctly, they should be philosophers. But what do these two philosophers have to do with behavior?

Turn back again, eh? Why are we talking about the war of primitive people?

Shut down a few categories, what is this jump thinking.

Although this book seems to be classified as popular science, there is no prior knowledge. To be honest, it is really tiring to read...

If you are confused like me, let me first tell you what Hobbes and Rousseau were talking about.

Both of these men were European philosophers, but they were not born at the same time.

Hobbes is older, a product of the 14th century. Rousseau was a man of the Age of Enlightenment in the 16th century.

What are these two people with an age difference of more than 200 years arguing about in the distance?

To put it simply, Hobbes believed that human beings should use totalitarianism and absolute monarchy as the main social system.

In order to demonstrate this point, he proposed that if human beings have no order and no law, they will fall into madness. In the natural state of human beings, that is, when human beings have no stone tools, no agriculture, and a gathering society, human beings are lonely, violent, and barbaric. .

It is because of order that human beings can progress.

Rousseau, on the other hand, objected to this. He believes that primitive people are noble, free and equal. He even proposed that it was the civilized people who caused the war, and the emergence of civilization was the beginning of all crazy violence.

Sounds a bit like the debate between humans are inherently evil versus inherently good.

And Rousseau's thoughts also reminded me of the great history of mankind just mentioned, thinking that stepping into agriculture is an irreversible process of plummeting happiness for human beings. Human beings were domesticated by wheat.

So, what is this chapter arguing about?

This chapter discusses whether our ancestors were dirty and barbaric, or noble and free primitive people tens of thousands of years ago.

Is human nature inherently good or inherently evil?

I think it's interesting to see how scientists do research~

From the process of their discussion, we can learn a way to solve problems in a logical and scientific way.

First, scientists want to know, when did war arise?

If wars occurred frequently in ancient times, it means that human beings are born to attack on a large scale, or even massacre. Human nature is inherently evil, which seems to be the answer.

The first step is to define war.

What is war?

Is organized fighting war?

Is war only where there are weapons?

Is it war to have an army dedicated to fighting?

If there are two people involved in the fight, assuming the family is well, they are not only competing for resources, but also have a relationship such as feud, is it still a war?

At present, for archaeologists, the general definition of war is relatively simple. As long as a large number of people die due to violence at the same time, it is called a war.

So people judged by discovering many large tombs, and the bones inside had fractures, and weapons stuck to the bones, and said, oh~ this is evidence of war!

Scientist Lawrence. Keely and Stephen. Pink is one of the advocates of this statement.

Many large graves have been excavated around the world, and in South Dakota, 60% of the graves were found to have been violent.

So, the conclusion came out ~ human beings are a species of war, even before civilization came out, human beings love to fight and kill.

Of course, the conclusion is not that simple. There are several points in this study that have been criticized.

For example, in some large tombs, although there are many dead people, it feels like a war relic, but only one person in it is confirmed to have died of violence, which means that this tomb may just be a place that has been used as a cemetery for a long time. It's not caused by war.

And, how do we judge people who died of violence? Some evidence is to see if there is a weapon next to the person, such as the distance between the stone arrowhead of the bow and the bone. But, it's hard to tell if it's a weapon, or an ornament, right?

What about fractures? Broken bones are basically violence, right?

right! However, this violence may come from hunting, or even from stick fighting, this ritual behavior. Just like we don't think of boxing as war.

To sum up, it is reasonable for the public to say that the public is right, and it is reasonable for the woman to say that the woman is right.

No one has definite evidence to say that there is a war here, and there is no way to say that there is no war here.

Which statement do you believe? Or, which statement do you want to believe?

Here I would like to talk about the author's conclusion. The author thinks that the answer is a mixture of the two. Wars almost always occur in human society, but only for hunter-gatherers who migrate around, wars rarely occur. In ancient times, humans were hunter-gatherers.

However, the hunter-gatherers were almost all squeezed out by the people who formed the society.

Therefore, our most primitive form does not have any wars, but it is hard to say that the ethnic groups without wars are our ancestors.

The author and Harari have similar ideas. Both believe that agriculture is an irreversible mistake of human beings.

Agriculture makes people settle, live in a place close to excrement, although they produce a lot, it is difficult to distribute, even unstable, and they depend on the sky to eat, so they have socioeconomic status, which is more difficult than any primate Class gaps across.

And all of these make wars that do not happen often in the collection of life become the norm.

OK~

Let’s summarize today’s content.

We talked about the influence of culture.

Like all effects on behaviour, this is complex.

Culture affects our genes, our genes affect our behavior, and our behavior affects culture.

There are various differences in culture, some are intuitive, such as what kind of person is an enemy that can be killed, and some are very subtle, such as when you see a photo, where do you pay attention, or do you dare to raise your hand to ask questions in class? .

And then, what was our most primitive culture like, how did we get here?

Is Hobbes right or Rousseau right?

Maybe they are all, and which one you are willing to believe, or whether you prefer to think that people are inherently good or evil, also has something to do with your culture.

And finally, I want to tell you about an interesting study.

Culture sounds like a limitation, but it is constantly changing. Not all Americans are more individualistic than the Chinese. It is not that if you are born in a collectivist society, you cannot change in your life.

Complete change is difficult, but not impossible.

Suppose you immigrate to the United States. Maybe you are quite collectivist yourself, but your children in the United States will basically think the same as other Americans.

Civilization is not engraved in genes.

Next, there is a follow-up to the study of which photos.

That's what scientists do to inspire you a little before showing you photos, for example, asking you to read some words about personal growth and autonomy, or telling you some stories about personal heroes, so that you can get a little bit of individualism, and you will use When you look at a photo with an individualistic eye, you care more about the person than his background.

The influence of culture can be changed.

And this change depends on you.

I thought, I would try my best to become a boy who is willing to raise his hand in class.

Then let’s do it like this~ If you like my channel, remember to subscribe, like and share my program with five stars. I’ll see you next Wednesday.

Bye bye~