Book Review |
|
The Moral Molecule: The Source of Love and Prosperity
Review by Judith L. Hand
A shorter, published version of this book review can be found on the Human Ethology Bulletin website.
A shorter, published version of this book review can be found on the Human Ethology Bulletin website.
Paul J. Zak - Dutton/Penguin 2012
Humans want "to know." Curiosity starts with us at a young age, when children start pestering their parents asking, "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" "Why? As for adults, they want especially to know why other adults do what they do and feel how they feel?
Neuroeconomist Paul Zak's delightful book The Moral Molecule answers many of our most vexing, intriguing, and important questions. How do we, for example, account for:
Neuroeconomist Paul Zak's delightful book The Moral Molecule answers many of our most vexing, intriguing, and important questions. How do we, for example, account for:
- The powerful attachment of mothers (and fathers) to their children.
- The warm emotional glow we feel from a big hug of genuine friendship.
- Some husbands being more faithful than others.
- Women, in general, being more generous than men.
- Men being much bigger risk takers with about everything, from finance to sports.
- Women, in general, having higher scores on tests of empathy.
- The feeling of joy or pleasure we have when we arrive "back home."
- Our willingness to help strangers in need.
- Our propensity to repay the trust people have in us by extending trust to them in return.
- The fact that, in some form, the Golden Rule—do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you—exists in virtually all cultures.
Arguably, explaining from a scientific perspective the whys and hows of human feelings and behaviors began with Charles Darwin, whose massive works described behavior in other animals as well as humans. In his time, instinct was a term used by many to describe repetitive actions performed by virtually all members of a species and seemingly without any education about how to do it. Birds building nests, or migrating elsewhere for the winter. A novice spider weaving its first web. A mother cow eating the placenta after the birth of her calf. Darwin used the term, but pointedly—and in retrospect wisely—refused to (prematurely) define it, saying that he could show that several "mental actions" commonly embraced by the term did not have readily definable universal characteristics. (1)
In succeeding decades people still used the term. "Instinct" is a bit like "love" and "pornography" in that people "know it when they see it." At least in many instances they generally sense when a behavior is an instinct and when it is instead "learned." Clearly these "instincts" had to be an expression of some innate biological factors, something within us that is built-in. But exactly what an instinct was, or how one might be produced or triggered, and whether or not humans had them, remained very unclear. Even up to the present time, the term escapes an agreed upon definition.
Of course, inquiring human minds were not content to leave it at that. Arguably we took our next big step forward beginning in the 1950s with the work of the fathers of the field of ethology (also called animal behavior). Dutch ornithologist Nikko Tinbergen and German zoologist and ornithologist Konrad Lorenz were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1973, along with Austrian zoologist and bee expert Karl von Frisch, for their discoveries about the organization and elicitation of behaviors in animals. Tinbergen and Lorenz made a reasonably clear distinction between instinct and learned behavior and began the discussion of drives and motivation. They also stressed the importance of studying animals in their natural environments if you want to understand how and why certain behaviors are elicited and the functions they serve.
In the intervening decades a torrent of behavioral, neurobiological, and biochemical research has exploded our understanding of how nervous systems and brains govern and produce behavior, from jellyfish to octopuses to dogs to humans. We have a good grasp on the neuroarchitecture of brains, including our own. We continue to advance our understanding of emotions and how they interact to produce behavior. (2)
In succeeding decades people still used the term. "Instinct" is a bit like "love" and "pornography" in that people "know it when they see it." At least in many instances they generally sense when a behavior is an instinct and when it is instead "learned." Clearly these "instincts" had to be an expression of some innate biological factors, something within us that is built-in. But exactly what an instinct was, or how one might be produced or triggered, and whether or not humans had them, remained very unclear. Even up to the present time, the term escapes an agreed upon definition.
Of course, inquiring human minds were not content to leave it at that. Arguably we took our next big step forward beginning in the 1950s with the work of the fathers of the field of ethology (also called animal behavior). Dutch ornithologist Nikko Tinbergen and German zoologist and ornithologist Konrad Lorenz were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1973, along with Austrian zoologist and bee expert Karl von Frisch, for their discoveries about the organization and elicitation of behaviors in animals. Tinbergen and Lorenz made a reasonably clear distinction between instinct and learned behavior and began the discussion of drives and motivation. They also stressed the importance of studying animals in their natural environments if you want to understand how and why certain behaviors are elicited and the functions they serve.
In the intervening decades a torrent of behavioral, neurobiological, and biochemical research has exploded our understanding of how nervous systems and brains govern and produce behavior, from jellyfish to octopuses to dogs to humans. We have a good grasp on the neuroarchitecture of brains, including our own. We continue to advance our understanding of emotions and how they interact to produce behavior. (2)
We're actually to the point of looking into the brain chemistry of behavior, the molecular basis of what motivates us. Paul Zak's work, entertainingly presented in The Moral Molecule, is cutting edge, and he has discovered that a remarkable chemical—the hormone oxytocin—profoundly shapes human behavior.
It does so by reinforcing actions that in our evolutionary past provided survival and reproductive advantages. Yes, a molecule accounts for all of the phenomena listed above and many many more such phenomena as well.
Much of human behavior is of course learned, but vast swaths of our actions are, in fact, the result of built-in responses to events or objects encountered in our lives. It is the architecture and chemistry of the brain that determines which physical or social conditions a given brain finds satisfying, pleasurable, exciting, stimulating, cool, worth doing, worth working for, worth repeating. Such stimuli or conditions are said to be"reinforcing," and they drive much of our behavior. We respond with many "built-in responses" to positive reinforcers (food, safe hiding place, a good-looking man or woman) and to negative reinforcers (pain, scolding, social isolation). And it turns out that the hormone oxytocin is a profoundly powerful reinforcer. When our brains produce a rush of oxytocin, the molecule floods the same pleasure centers as such known mindaltering reinforcers as pleasure-inducing drugs. An oxytocin rush can release a cascade of other feel-good chemicals – notably serotonin and dopamine.
It does so by reinforcing actions that in our evolutionary past provided survival and reproductive advantages. Yes, a molecule accounts for all of the phenomena listed above and many many more such phenomena as well.
Much of human behavior is of course learned, but vast swaths of our actions are, in fact, the result of built-in responses to events or objects encountered in our lives. It is the architecture and chemistry of the brain that determines which physical or social conditions a given brain finds satisfying, pleasurable, exciting, stimulating, cool, worth doing, worth working for, worth repeating. Such stimuli or conditions are said to be"reinforcing," and they drive much of our behavior. We respond with many "built-in responses" to positive reinforcers (food, safe hiding place, a good-looking man or woman) and to negative reinforcers (pain, scolding, social isolation). And it turns out that the hormone oxytocin is a profoundly powerful reinforcer. When our brains produce a rush of oxytocin, the molecule floods the same pleasure centers as such known mindaltering reinforcers as pleasure-inducing drugs. An oxytocin rush can release a cascade of other feel-good chemicals – notably serotonin and dopamine.
Oxytocin first made it appearance in the study of behavior in association with reproduction. When a woman is in labor she releases large amounts of oxytocin, which facilitates birth. It is released upon stimulation of nipples, which facilitates the release of milk during breastfeeding. It importantly accounts for a mother's pleasure in breastfeeding. All of these results of oxytocin release clearly facilitate successful reproduction.
But research is now revealing how this nifty, multi-purpose chemical reinforcer also facilitates other physical and behavioral responses, such as pair bonding and empathy. This natural drug of pleasure has been a prime tool natural selection used to coax us to do those things that enable us to lead successful lives as extremely social beings.
The Moral Molecule is a fascinating recounting of Dr. Zak's years of blood-extracting experiments to figure out just how oxytocin performs its magic. He states in the introduction that he will explore first its influence on individuals, and then on close personal relationships, and then on society as a whole. He also stipulates up front that the vast majority of people are essentially primed to follow the Golden Rule (i.e., put another way, that we are essentially "good"), and that "to elicit that naturally occurring, benign behavior all we have to do is to create the circumstances in which oxytocin can exercise its influence, which means, in part, keeping other hormonal influences out of the way." (3) Later he will mention testosterone in particular as a key hormone that can interfere with oxytocin's positive effects.
But research is now revealing how this nifty, multi-purpose chemical reinforcer also facilitates other physical and behavioral responses, such as pair bonding and empathy. This natural drug of pleasure has been a prime tool natural selection used to coax us to do those things that enable us to lead successful lives as extremely social beings.
The Moral Molecule is a fascinating recounting of Dr. Zak's years of blood-extracting experiments to figure out just how oxytocin performs its magic. He states in the introduction that he will explore first its influence on individuals, and then on close personal relationships, and then on society as a whole. He also stipulates up front that the vast majority of people are essentially primed to follow the Golden Rule (i.e., put another way, that we are essentially "good"), and that "to elicit that naturally occurring, benign behavior all we have to do is to create the circumstances in which oxytocin can exercise its influence, which means, in part, keeping other hormonal influences out of the way." (3) Later he will mention testosterone in particular as a key hormone that can interfere with oxytocin's positive effects.
He also early on sets up the theme woven through the whole book, viz. the role of trust in facilitating successful reproduction and social living. His early work on economics had shown that the most important factor determining whether a society does well or remains impoverished depends, above all, on trustworthiness. What matters more than natural resources, education, quality health care, or even a people's work ethic is how much individuals participating within the society are trustworthy and how much they can count on reciprocal trustworthiness of their fellow citizens. (4)
What his work shows is that when we are given someone else's trust—when someone does something to show us that they trust us—we get a hit of oxytocin. And this sense of feeling good from the feel-good-molecule causes us to trust in return. All you need to do to trigger the release of this moral molecule is give someone a sign of trust. It's a fascinating concept! Here is how he summarizes the essence of this work:
What his work shows is that when we are given someone else's trust—when someone does something to show us that they trust us—we get a hit of oxytocin. And this sense of feeling good from the feel-good-molecule causes us to trust in return. All you need to do to trigger the release of this moral molecule is give someone a sign of trust. It's a fascinating concept! Here is how he summarizes the essence of this work:
"Am I actually saying that a single molecule—and, by the way, a chemical substance that scientists like me can manipulate in the lab—accounts for why some people give freely of themselves and others are coldhearted bastards, why some people cheat and steal and others you can trust with your life, why some husbands are more faithful than others, and, by the way, why women tend to be more generous—and nicer—than men? In a word, yes." (5)
He opens the story of his pursuit of oxytocin's secrets by recounting his participation in a wedding at an English country manor. The bride was aware of his research on oxytocin as being a mediator of moral behavior because she was a writer for the magazine New Scientist. She invited Zak to take samples of her oxytocin blood levels before her wedding and immediately after, to see if the emotional uplift of the wedding would alter her oxytocin level. In fact, she wanted him to take samples from the groom and all the other guests who were willing as well.
The logistics of blood-drawing and analysis at the wedding and in many other of his research venues makes fascinating, and because of the author's casual writing style, often amusing reading. The results at the wedding were pretty much as expected: the bride's levels shot up 28 percent and for each of the other people tested, the increase in oxytocin was in direct proportion to the likely intensity of their emotional engagement in the ceremony. He notes a significant seeming anomaly, that the uptick for the groom's father was 19% but for the groom, only 13%. Why? Because testosterone interferes with the release of oxytocin, and immediately after the ceremony there had been a 100% spike in the groom's testosterone level!
The logistics of blood-drawing and analysis at the wedding and in many other of his research venues makes fascinating, and because of the author's casual writing style, often amusing reading. The results at the wedding were pretty much as expected: the bride's levels shot up 28 percent and for each of the other people tested, the increase in oxytocin was in direct proportion to the likely intensity of their emotional engagement in the ceremony. He notes a significant seeming anomaly, that the uptick for the groom's father was 19% but for the groom, only 13%. Why? Because testosterone interferes with the release of oxytocin, and immediately after the ceremony there had been a 100% spike in the groom's testosterone level!
The scope of the book is broad, covering the evolution of trust, the pathways by which oxytocin works to give us that good feeling, how our life experiences and other factors, such as "bad genes," can mess with the good effects of the moral molecule, how this biology intersects religion, why greed isn't good for individuals or societies, and how to create a bottom-up democracy. He makes the case for the link between oxytocin to empathy, to morality, to trust, to love, to economic prosperity…and to something he calls a virtuous cycle.
A reader will find touches of philosophy throughout. For example, in a chapter discussing the evolution of trust, he describes the mating of lobsters. The female must jettison her protective shell to facilitate mating. She must "trust" at some level if they are to mate because under other conditions the male is ordinarily treated as a competitor or even a threat. The chemical involved in coaxing the female to doff her shell and the male to watch over her, protect her, and treat her gently, are ancient precursors to oxytocin.
From this Zak concludes: "What we can say…is that the most basic, physiological mechanism for all our moral impulses dates back to a time long before animals ever ventured onto dry land….The fact that the precursors of trust and of reciprocity are so primal, that the ancestral DNA of our moral behavior is embedded in cells throughout the body, and that it is all rooted in reproduction, suggests pretty clearly that what we now call morality is not some civilizing afterthought, or a frill that runs counter to nature, but, in fact, something deeply connected with basic survival." (6)
A reader will find touches of philosophy throughout. For example, in a chapter discussing the evolution of trust, he describes the mating of lobsters. The female must jettison her protective shell to facilitate mating. She must "trust" at some level if they are to mate because under other conditions the male is ordinarily treated as a competitor or even a threat. The chemical involved in coaxing the female to doff her shell and the male to watch over her, protect her, and treat her gently, are ancient precursors to oxytocin.
From this Zak concludes: "What we can say…is that the most basic, physiological mechanism for all our moral impulses dates back to a time long before animals ever ventured onto dry land….The fact that the precursors of trust and of reciprocity are so primal, that the ancestral DNA of our moral behavior is embedded in cells throughout the body, and that it is all rooted in reproduction, suggests pretty clearly that what we now call morality is not some civilizing afterthought, or a frill that runs counter to nature, but, in fact, something deeply connected with basic survival." (6)
In another chapter, "Moral Markets," which explores the relationship of oxytocin and testosterone to economics, Zak writes, "Morality is not wishful thinking—it's biology, specifically, as we now know, the biology of oxytocin. This means the behaviors that align with pro-social behavior, commonly called moral behavior, aren't adapted from a Sunday school lesson but are time-tested survival strategies, shaped by the harshest realist of all, natural selection." (7)
Arguably one of humanity's most immoral behaviors is war. This is the subject of my project, A Future Without War.org.8 I explore why we make war and how, or if, we could end it. The Moral Molecule does not address war directly, but Zak's work on the effects of oxytocin, and its opposite testosterone, clearly are relevant in four notable ways:
Arguably one of humanity's most immoral behaviors is war. This is the subject of my project, A Future Without War.org.8 I explore why we make war and how, or if, we could end it. The Moral Molecule does not address war directly, but Zak's work on the effects of oxytocin, and its opposite testosterone, clearly are relevant in four notable ways:
- levels of oxytocin and testosterone are not the same in men and women; women
have higher levels of oxytocin and, as a sex, show greater levels of empathy; - there is a relationship between testosterone levels and dominance preoccupation;
- essential human goodness, as facilitated by oxytocin, is the basis for the
successful use of nonviolent social transformation; - human evolutionary success has depended on balance between male and female
tendencies, on expression of both male and female dispositions.
How do each of these relate to ending war? First, a key hypothesis of my work is that war is far more disadvantageous for women than it is for men. As a consequence, women, much more than men, are more predisposed to avoid going to war or allowing their men to begin wars. Women are adapted instead to prefer social stability. This sexual asymmetry is an adaptive response to different reproductive pressures and priorities related to the fact that men can produce great quantities of sperm while women are limited in the numbers of offspring they can bear and raise to reproductive maturity. (9)
To test my proposed "female preference for social stability hypothesis" I suggest, in a just completed book, that cross-cultural studies on behavioral responses of men and women in a variety of conflict and other situations should not be the same. (10) We should find statistically significant differences. And the differences should be such that women's preferred behavioral choice is something that, in the short- or long-term, will facilitate social stability…the exact opposite of war.
One such difference should be that women, in general, are more empathetic, more sensitive to the feelings of others and eager to soothe their feelings. With respect to oxytocin and empathy Zak writes, "…mother ‘love,' if you will—created the more granular, sensory perceptions that eventually linked oxytocin with empathy. (It also helps explain why females have freer access to both than males. In every experiment I've designed for humans, women release more oxytocin than men." (11) If someone proposes to launch a war, having empathy for people in the group that might be attacked would be expected to put a brake on the decision to strike a first blow, and presumably woman (as a group) would be expected to feel greater empathy, perhaps especially for the women and children in that other group.
To test my proposed "female preference for social stability hypothesis" I suggest, in a just completed book, that cross-cultural studies on behavioral responses of men and women in a variety of conflict and other situations should not be the same. (10) We should find statistically significant differences. And the differences should be such that women's preferred behavioral choice is something that, in the short- or long-term, will facilitate social stability…the exact opposite of war.
One such difference should be that women, in general, are more empathetic, more sensitive to the feelings of others and eager to soothe their feelings. With respect to oxytocin and empathy Zak writes, "…mother ‘love,' if you will—created the more granular, sensory perceptions that eventually linked oxytocin with empathy. (It also helps explain why females have freer access to both than males. In every experiment I've designed for humans, women release more oxytocin than men." (11) If someone proposes to launch a war, having empathy for people in the group that might be attacked would be expected to put a brake on the decision to strike a first blow, and presumably woman (as a group) would be expected to feel greater empathy, perhaps especially for the women and children in that other group.
Another difference predicted by the hypothesis is that in conflict situations women, compared to men, should prefer more win-win methods of resolution (compromise, negotiation, mediation) as opposed to win-lose methods (fighting to determine a winner and looser). Research and practical experience makes evident that win-win resolutions result in more socially stable outcomes, the outcome predicted by the hypothesis to be a female preference. It would be interesting to see if this sexual difference, which studies have found does exist in western cultures, exists cross-culturally. And if it does, how is voting for further negotiation over a preemptive strike in a given context related to an individual's levels of oxytocin and testosterone at the time of the vote?
The second key point Zak's work relates to, and that is key to my work, is that war is not an innate, hard-wired "instinct," but that we do have several hard-wired behaviors that make us vulnerable to it. These built-in traits, in some environmental and cultural contexts, allow a warmonger to build an army. They enable him to convince his people of the need to attack some other group. (12) One of these hard-wired proclivities concerns dominance behavior and the tendency to form dominance hierarchies and to defer to authorities.
In a chapter entitled "Bad Boys," Zak explores bad (and good) behavior associated with testosterone. With testosterone, it is men who exhibit the behaviors he discusses more strongly, as a sex, than do women. For example, men are found cross-culturally to be greater risk takers, and Zak cites research that ties greater risk-taking (in men or women) to higher levels of testosterone.
The second key point Zak's work relates to, and that is key to my work, is that war is not an innate, hard-wired "instinct," but that we do have several hard-wired behaviors that make us vulnerable to it. These built-in traits, in some environmental and cultural contexts, allow a warmonger to build an army. They enable him to convince his people of the need to attack some other group. (12) One of these hard-wired proclivities concerns dominance behavior and the tendency to form dominance hierarchies and to defer to authorities.
In a chapter entitled "Bad Boys," Zak explores bad (and good) behavior associated with testosterone. With testosterone, it is men who exhibit the behaviors he discusses more strongly, as a sex, than do women. For example, men are found cross-culturally to be greater risk takers, and Zak cites research that ties greater risk-taking (in men or women) to higher levels of testosterone.
With respect to making war, a strongly expressed male predisposition to engage in dominance behavior, including the construction of dominance hierarchies, allows individuals to build an army. While women also construct dominance hierarchies, theirs are less rigid, and they are much less likely than are men to use physical aggression to build such hierarchies or dominate others.
In warrior cultures dominance-seeking is encouraged. In egalitarian and nonwarring cultures, building dominance hierarchies and use of aggression in general is suppressed by a variety of means. By revealing chemical differences between men and women in their levels of oxytocin and testosterone, The Moral Molecule offers a physiological explanation for male/female differences in dominance seeking behavior. War—arguably the ultimate dominance seeking behavior—is overwhelmingly a male endeavor.
A third point I stress, which Zak's work addresses indirectly, is that to end the violence that is war, we can't use violent means. To fight wars thinking that defeating the opposition using force is the means to end war is a proven historical failure. Instead, a movement to end war would require that we use the strategy and tactics of nonviolent social transformation. (13)
This approach to social change has variously been called nonviolent civil disobedience, nonviolent struggle, and nonviolent protest. One of its most skillful modern users, Mohandas Gandhi, gave it the name satyagraha. The method is based on several fundamentals. First, that the objective is not to defeat the opponent, but to win them over, to convince them that what they are doing is harmful (i.e., wrong/immoral).
This in turn is based on another fundamental to the strategy, which is making sure that the cause being championed is a "just" cause; in the case of war, that the ending-war activists are standing on the higher moral ground.
In warrior cultures dominance-seeking is encouraged. In egalitarian and nonwarring cultures, building dominance hierarchies and use of aggression in general is suppressed by a variety of means. By revealing chemical differences between men and women in their levels of oxytocin and testosterone, The Moral Molecule offers a physiological explanation for male/female differences in dominance seeking behavior. War—arguably the ultimate dominance seeking behavior—is overwhelmingly a male endeavor.
A third point I stress, which Zak's work addresses indirectly, is that to end the violence that is war, we can't use violent means. To fight wars thinking that defeating the opposition using force is the means to end war is a proven historical failure. Instead, a movement to end war would require that we use the strategy and tactics of nonviolent social transformation. (13)
This approach to social change has variously been called nonviolent civil disobedience, nonviolent struggle, and nonviolent protest. One of its most skillful modern users, Mohandas Gandhi, gave it the name satyagraha. The method is based on several fundamentals. First, that the objective is not to defeat the opponent, but to win them over, to convince them that what they are doing is harmful (i.e., wrong/immoral).
This in turn is based on another fundamental to the strategy, which is making sure that the cause being championed is a "just" cause; in the case of war, that the ending-war activists are standing on the higher moral ground.
And a third fundamental upon which the entire method of nonviolent social transformation depends is the belief that all humans are basically good. That if your cause is just, your refusal to use violence will allow you to appeal to your opponents essential human nature, to that "goodness within," and thereby ultimately to win your opponent to your side. This works because your opponent will "know in their hearts" that they are on the wrong moral side of the issue.
So what is human nature? Is it in fact essentially good? Does it understand, seek, and reward fairness? Or is it, as some religions, philosophies, and economists argue, essentially bad or overwhelmingly selfish?
Zak's work leads him to the position that we are primed by nature to be pro-social: to be cooperative, to be trusting, to be moral. Deviation from that state, which is the state that results from the flow of the moral molecule oxytocin, is just that….deviation. Our most basic propensity, according to Zak's work and based on the action of oxytocin, is to follow the Golden Rule. This surely would include the idea that one ought not kill another person who has done you no wrong.
Nonviolent social struggle, based on working to win over your opponent to your just cause, has been shown to be a powerful transformative agent. (14) It meets its most determined foe only in a dictator or tyrant willing to kill men, women, and children if necessary to retain power, individuals who are no longer in touch with this internal moral compass.
So what is human nature? Is it in fact essentially good? Does it understand, seek, and reward fairness? Or is it, as some religions, philosophies, and economists argue, essentially bad or overwhelmingly selfish?
Zak's work leads him to the position that we are primed by nature to be pro-social: to be cooperative, to be trusting, to be moral. Deviation from that state, which is the state that results from the flow of the moral molecule oxytocin, is just that….deviation. Our most basic propensity, according to Zak's work and based on the action of oxytocin, is to follow the Golden Rule. This surely would include the idea that one ought not kill another person who has done you no wrong.
Nonviolent social struggle, based on working to win over your opponent to your just cause, has been shown to be a powerful transformative agent. (14) It meets its most determined foe only in a dictator or tyrant willing to kill men, women, and children if necessary to retain power, individuals who are no longer in touch with this internal moral compass.
Finally, ending war and preventing backsliding into future rounds of violence will only be possible when men and women are full partners in our governing bodies, and there are many points where Zak points out the need for male/female balance. Not only that it exists in nature, but that it is when our societies are fully expressing this balance that we get our best (most adaptive) result. In the "Bad Boys" chapter he points out how testosterone suites men for their roles in our survival. For example, that testosterone specifically interferes with the uptake of oxytocin, which produces a damping effect on being caring and feeling, seems like a negative. But, says Zak, "it makes young males— hunters and warriors—not only faster and stronger but … less squeamish about crushing skulls in order to feed and protect the family." (15)
With respect to war, history makes very clear that men alone are unable to free us from this profoundly bad habit/invention/meme. The strong effects of testosterone on male behavior suggest why. It isn't that men wouldn't prefer to end this behavior. They are also geared to the Golden Rule. Throughout history there have been male-led attempts to do so, the most notable recent ones being the League of Nations and the United Nations.
The hitch is that over time, male biology works against them. Good efforts and intentions get usurped or morph back into acceptance of dominating others using violence. If women were sharing in decision-making, as they do in most nonwarring cultures, their oxytocin-fueled proclivities for social stability could help restore our social world to an adaptive balance.
With respect to war, history makes very clear that men alone are unable to free us from this profoundly bad habit/invention/meme. The strong effects of testosterone on male behavior suggest why. It isn't that men wouldn't prefer to end this behavior. They are also geared to the Golden Rule. Throughout history there have been male-led attempts to do so, the most notable recent ones being the League of Nations and the United Nations.
The hitch is that over time, male biology works against them. Good efforts and intentions get usurped or morph back into acceptance of dominating others using violence. If women were sharing in decision-making, as they do in most nonwarring cultures, their oxytocin-fueled proclivities for social stability could help restore our social world to an adaptive balance.
Here is another testosterone effect. Recent papers using games to explore the origins of altruism and social group dynamics have highlighted the need for bad behavior to be punished… the need for social policing. Zak touches on this necessary requirement to our social lives thus: "But when we look at the really big picture, a curious fact stands out: the male licentiousness that produced our rogue's gallery of high-profile philanderers appears bound up with a completely incongruous male desire, which is to punish offenders. Despite my gender's well-documental moral failings, we're the ones who elect ourselves the enforcers—the hanging judges, the preachers who condemn the sinners, the hard-ass drill sergeants, the no-excuse CEO's." (16)
The Moral Molecule is written for popular consumption, obvious not only by the informal voice but by the fact that broad generalizations, like the one above, are stated but not readily tied to supporting research. Each chapter has "notes," which actually are simply the relevant bibliography, but the reader is left to figure out which book or paper provides the supporting evidence for generations presented. This will make it a less handy reference for academics.
From the beginning of the book, Zak does make very clear that men and women secrete both oxytocin and testosterone, and that these behavioral traits are found in both sexes. A reader may need to remind himself or herself of this caveat, since individual men and women they personally know may not fit a particular generalization. But significant sexual differences are real, they have enormous influence on our social lives, and they need to be stated clearly, something Zak has done.
For students of behavior, for any person interested in the human condition, Paul Zak's work, skillfully presented in The Moral Molecule, is a significant, must-read leap forward in answering some of our most fundamental questions about why we do what we do and why we feel the way we feel.
The Moral Molecule is written for popular consumption, obvious not only by the informal voice but by the fact that broad generalizations, like the one above, are stated but not readily tied to supporting research. Each chapter has "notes," which actually are simply the relevant bibliography, but the reader is left to figure out which book or paper provides the supporting evidence for generations presented. This will make it a less handy reference for academics.
From the beginning of the book, Zak does make very clear that men and women secrete both oxytocin and testosterone, and that these behavioral traits are found in both sexes. A reader may need to remind himself or herself of this caveat, since individual men and women they personally know may not fit a particular generalization. But significant sexual differences are real, they have enormous influence on our social lives, and they need to be stated clearly, something Zak has done.
For students of behavior, for any person interested in the human condition, Paul Zak's work, skillfully presented in The Moral Molecule, is a significant, must-read leap forward in answering some of our most fundamental questions about why we do what we do and why we feel the way we feel.
Judith L. Hand is a published novelist under her name and the nom de plume Judith Leon and the creator of a website on the subject of war. She completed her Ph.D. degree in Animal Behavior at the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1979, her subfields being ornithology and primatology. After completing a Smithsonian post-doctoral Fellowship in Washington, D.C., she taught briefly at UCLA and published on communication and conflict resolution. Currently, in addition to writing fiction, she writes, speaks, and networks to promote understanding of why and how we can end war.
1 Darwin, Charles. 1859. The Origin of Species. Chapter 7. Instinct. London: John Murray. 234-263.
2 Panksepp, Jaak. 1998. Affective neuroscience: the foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.
3 Zak, Paul J. 2012. The Moral Molecule. New York: Penguin/Dutton. p. xviii
4 ibid p. xix
5 ibid xi
6 ibid p. 29
7 ibid p. 167-168.
8 Hand, Judith L. 2003. Women, Power, and the Biology of Peace. San Diego, CA: Questpath Publishing; an extensive website, A Future Without War.org. AFutureWithoutWar.org. [afww.org]
9 Hand, Judith. 2005. Biological differences between men and women with respect to physical aggression and social stability. (accessed 20 Sept. 2012).
10 Hand, Judith. 2012. Shift: The Beginning of War, The Ending of War.
11 Zak, Paul J. 2012. The Moral Molecule. New York: Penguin/Dutton. p. 67.
12 Hand, Judith. 2003. Women, Power, and the Biology of Peace. San Diego, CA: Questpath Publishing; Hand, Judith. 2014. Shift: The Beginning of War, The Ending of War.
13 Hand, Judith. 2011. Shaping the future. (accessed 20 Sept. 2012).
14 Nagler, Michael N. Hope or Terror? Gandhi and the Other 9/11. Minneapolis, MN: Nonviolent Peaceforce and Tomales, CA: Metta Center; Sharp, Gene. 2005. Waging Nonviolent Struggle. 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential. Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers.
15 Zak, Paul J. 2012. The Moral Molecule. New York: Penguin/Dutton. p. 83.
16 ibid, pp. 80, 84, 87.
2 Panksepp, Jaak. 1998. Affective neuroscience: the foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.
3 Zak, Paul J. 2012. The Moral Molecule. New York: Penguin/Dutton. p. xviii
4 ibid p. xix
5 ibid xi
6 ibid p. 29
7 ibid p. 167-168.
8 Hand, Judith L. 2003. Women, Power, and the Biology of Peace. San Diego, CA: Questpath Publishing; an extensive website, A Future Without War.org. AFutureWithoutWar.org. [afww.org]
9 Hand, Judith. 2005. Biological differences between men and women with respect to physical aggression and social stability. (accessed 20 Sept. 2012).
10 Hand, Judith. 2012. Shift: The Beginning of War, The Ending of War.
11 Zak, Paul J. 2012. The Moral Molecule. New York: Penguin/Dutton. p. 67.
12 Hand, Judith. 2003. Women, Power, and the Biology of Peace. San Diego, CA: Questpath Publishing; Hand, Judith. 2014. Shift: The Beginning of War, The Ending of War.
13 Hand, Judith. 2011. Shaping the future. (accessed 20 Sept. 2012).
14 Nagler, Michael N. Hope or Terror? Gandhi and the Other 9/11. Minneapolis, MN: Nonviolent Peaceforce and Tomales, CA: Metta Center; Sharp, Gene. 2005. Waging Nonviolent Struggle. 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential. Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers.
15 Zak, Paul J. 2012. The Moral Molecule. New York: Penguin/Dutton. p. 83.
16 ibid, pp. 80, 84, 87.