Remember, again, that we are referring to an interactive process over time. Both
experience and genes matter. Remember also that we are talking here about human beings
who make conscious choices and can learn attitudes and behaviors. Consider then, even in
the event that an extreme altruist and an extreme egoist should and have children. These
children are most likely to inherit some parts of each parent’s genetic makeup. Like most
individuals they will probably be found somewhat closer to the middle of the
systemizer/empath spectrum than either of their parents. As they grow up, they will learn
which behaviors and attitudes are likely to be rewarded and which behaviors are discouraged
in their particular institutional context. In short, if these children are raised in a country in
which the institutions reward cooperation, consensus building and contextual thinking, they
are likely to reinforce this aspect of their genetic predisposition and de-emphasize the more
egoistic/systematic predispositions. If they are raised in a more self-seeking institutional
context then the reverse would likely apply. Moreover, to come back the earlier point, as these
children grow up they are also more likely to prefer, marry and have children with individuals
who are more likely to succeed in their respective environments. This could well be like the
noted phenomenon that children who are abused often repeatedly seek out abusive
relationships as adults. And then, of course, they are likely to exhibit violence towards their
children... and the cycle continues.
NONE of this suggests any kind of genetic determinacy. Instead it should focus our
attention on the interdependence of attitudes, behaviors, and genes over time. Moreover, this
(albeit thinly drafted) logic emphasizes the role of political institutions in this story.
Co-evolution
Political institutions are created and they evolve. Both of these phenomenon—
institutional creation and change—are done by individuals who have preferences and basic
suppositions about how other people behave. If these preferences are a product of both their
genetic inheritance and their individual experience then it makes a great deal of sense to
consider who created (and/or changed) specific institutions in order to consider why they
constructed the institutions they did. The point here is that institutions that structure political
and social behavior are constructed by particular individuals who have expectations and
understandings of other people’s behavior and motivation.
Almost every constitution begins with broad statements about human nature, but these
statements could in fact be based in really quite different assumptions about human natures.
19
Convention