The Human Nature Science Manifesto 1.0 (Beta)

This is an open invitation for scientists who study any aspect of “the nature” of us human animals to help create a broadly consilient team of human nature scientists. Please consider being on “the human nature science team.”

The purpose of the Human Nature Science Manifesto 1.0 (Beta Version) is to encourage human nature scientists to be more proactive as the leaders, teachers, experts on the science of human nature for the world. Please read the Manifesto and consider being on our team of “beta testers.”

#1: Every unique species of animal has a certain range of physiological, biological, behavioral characteristics that are “universal” to animals of that species. eg. “wasp nature,” “octopus nature,” “cobra nature.”

Query: Would most scientists (whether “human nature scientists” or not) and most science communication professionals agree with this statement?

#2: Men & women who study “the nature” of a particular species of animal using honest, consistent, well-respected, “state of the art,” scientific methodology can usually come to a high degree of agreement/consensus about the most basic characteristics and range of functional development and behavior patterns (i.e. “the nature”) of male & female animals of that species in their normal/average/natural habitats.

Query: Would most scientists (especially ethologists) and science communication professionals agree with this statement?

#3: Human beings are a unique species of animal.

Query 1: Isn’t it reasonable, logical, scientific, and common sense that just like every other species of animal, we human beings would have certain basic physiological, biological, behavioral characteristics and development patterns that are “universal” to all humans — i.e. a range of healthy or functional “human nature”?

Query 2: Would most scientists (especially “human nature scientists”) agree with Query 1?

#4: Religious leaders have been claiming that they are the experts on what is “human nature” for a very long time . . . well, at least for the past 5000 years.

Query 1: Does it make sense that if there is a range of “human nature” for all individual humans of our species, it would be different for people in different religions and/or for the “non-religious” and/or for “human nature scientists?

Query 2: Would most scientists (especially “human nature scientists”) think it a worthy goal of “the human nature science community” to communicate responsibly, respectfully, and effectively to “religious communities” about what “human nature scientists” have discovered and continue to discover about the range of “the nature” of us human beings? 

#5: Philosophers have been claiming to be the experts on “what is human nature” for as long or longer than religious leaders.

Query 1: Does it make sense that the first 2 pages of a Google Search of “the science of human nature” retrieves multiple philosophy-related, philosophy-centric” entries, several repeat entries to a book of that title published in 1917 for “young students in high schools and normal schools,” and only a few entries linking to the work of current “human nature scientists”?

Query 2: It seems to me that entries about current “human nature science research” would be more appropriate to show up in a Google search for “the science of human nature.” I’m not implying that a Google search is a good research starting practice, but it is certainly where many or most “laypersons” would start if he or she were curious about finding an overview of “the science of human nature.” I am implying, suggesting, advocating for “human nature scientists” and “human nature science communication professionals” to take the lead in communicating about the current state of “the science of human nature.”

#6:  Many political leaders, throughout history and continuing today all over the world, act self-righteously and arrogantly as though they are the experts on “human nature” — the experts on what is “good/right” and what is “bad/wrong” for human beings – and do their best to impose their “brand” of “human nature” on their political followers and enemies. 

Query 1: Isn’t the primary responsibility of politicians/policy makers at the local, regional, national, and global level (at least ostensibly/theoretically/idealistically) to make the laws and policies that are most in harmony with what is best for all the human beings living in their political unit?

Query 2: Does it make sense for our political leaders to be making the laws/policies governing human behavior and our most important human institutions without a grounded, centered, reality understanding of the fundamental basic principles of “human nature” that apply to all human beings?

Query 3: How much real, effective, consilient, mutually respectful, collaboration and dialogue goes on between “human nature scientists” and politicians/policy makers in most political jurisdictions in the world?

#7: Parents, Grandparents, Step-parents, Aunts & Uncles, are the “Family Experts” on “Human Nature” and many are just as “dogmatic” and “rigid/controlling” about what is the truth about “human nature” as many religious teachers, philosophers, & politicians.

Query: Where do most families get their “info” as to what is “the truth about human nature”? Certainly NOT, in most cases, from studying credible, respected, “human nature science.”

#8: Social psychologists study the nature of us human beings.  So too, evolutionary psychologists; so too, sociologists; so too, anthropologists; so too, cognitive scientists; so too, neuroscientists; so too, developmental psychologists; so too, physiologists; so too, social neuroscientists; so too human biologists; and on and on and on – thousands of dedicated scientists all over the world studying the nature of us humans.

Query 1: Isn’t it time and wouldn’t it be responsible for “human nature scientists” to take more active leadership about what is and what is not “human nature”
— based on current consensus science?

Query 2: How many scientists who study any aspect of the nature of us human beings consider themselves to be “human nature scientists”? Wouldn’t it be a positive development for scientists who study and/or teach some aspect of “the nature of us human beings” to consider themselves all part of a big team – “the human nature science team” – all working towards helping us human beings “know ourselves, our nature” better?

Query 3: How much real, effective, ongoing, consilient, mutually respectful, collaboration and dialogue goes on among the many different academic/scientific disciplines that study and/or teach some aspect of “the nature of us human beings”?

#9: [Caveat/Warning: This is an opinion/impression and probably gross over-generalization.] The “hard scientists,” the “pure scientists,” the “natural scientists,” the “formal scientists” treat the “social sciences” as “science lite” or even “not real science.”

Query 1 : Isn’t it a little “off” to exclude the nature of us human animals from the “natural sciences”? Aren’t we humans and the nature of us humans just as much a “part of nature” as a rabbit or a seagull or a pine tree?

Query 2: Is it possible that the separation of the “social sciences” from the “natural sciences” and the “life sciences” is a reflection that most “civilized” cultures are strongly influenced by religious teachings that treat us human beings as “not animals” – but rather as unique beings — categorically different (and “better”) than “animals”?

#10: The nature of human mental function (the range of optimal or even average “mental health” versus the range of below average to severe “mental un-health”) is certainly a central/fundamental aspect of “human nature.” Psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and the whole range of mental health professionals (MFCC’s, LCSW’s, Counselors, . . . .etc. etc. etc.] hold themselves out as experts in “mental health”  and “mental un-health” to their clients/patients and to the world.

Query 1: If there are certain basic truisms of human nature relevant to “the nature of human mental function” that a broad range of “human nature scientists” can agree are well-established, well-supported, by the most current “human nature science,” wouldn’t it be a worthy and responsible goal of “the human nature science community” to communicate responsibly, respectfully, and effectively to the Mental Health Professionals Community about what “human nature scientists” have discovered and continue to discover about the range of healthy human mental function?

Query 2: How much real, effective, consilient, mutually respectful, collaboration and dialogue goes on between “human nature scientists” and Mental Health Professionals on a consistent, responsible, accountable, professional level?

#11: The nature of human physical/physiological/biological function (the range of optimal or even average “physical health” versus the range of below average to severe “physical un-health”) is an important, fundamental, aspect of “human nature.” Medical Doctors, Physical Health Professionals, have as their primary focus/service/job to help their clients’/patients’ physical bodies function better, function optimally, heal from dysfunction.

Query 1: If there are certain basic truisms of human nature relevant to “the nature of human physical function” that a broad range of “human nature scientists” can agree are well-established, well-supported, by the most current “human nature science,” wouldn’t it be a worthy and responsible goal of “the human nature science community” to communicate responsibly, respectfully, and effectively to Physical Health Professional Community about what “human nature scientists” have discovered and continue to discover about the range of healthy human physical function?

Query 2: How much real, effective, consilient, mutually respectful, collaboration and dialogue goes on between “human nature scientists” and Physical Health Professionals on a consistent, responsible, accountable, professional level?

#12: Certainly “human nature science” includes the study of such aspects of us humans as human learning, human thinking, human attention, human reasoning, human memory, human listening, human social/group/team behavior, human communication skills, human physical/athletic capabilities/skills/functioning. These are all areas of human life and development that are relevant and important to “educational success” for schools and “teaching professionals” and “learners” at the pre-school through graduate school level . . . as well as to “teaching professionals” and “learners” outside of academia.

Query 1: If there are certain basic truisms of human nature related to human learning, human thinking, etc. that a broad range of “human nature scientists” can agree are well-established, well-supported, by the most current “human nature science,” wouldn’t it be a worthy and responsible goal of “the human nature science community” to communicate responsibly, respectfully, and effectively to “teaching professionals” about what “human nature scientists” have discovered and continue to discover about “the nature” of us human beings?

Query 2: How much real, effective, consilient, mutually respectful, collaboration and dialogue goes on between “human nature scientists” and “teaching professionals” on a consistent, responsible, accountable, professional level?

#13: “The Media” in the broadest sense, including journalists, media/entertainers, the corporate media, literary critics, fiction writers, non-fiction writers, film makers, playwrights, advice columnists, etc. etc., are expressing & perpetuating unexamined myths/beliefs/assumptions/opinions/fantasies of “human nature” to their audiences all the time, whether explicitly or implicitly.

Query: Can certain basics/fundamentals/truisms of human nature generally agreed upon by a broad consensus of dedicated, well-respected “human nature scientists” have a positive, moderating effect on “the Media’s” often irresponsible tendency of perpetuating myths/fantasies/outlandish opinions, etc. about “human nature” that are not supported by credible, responsible “human nature science”?

 

Feedback Please:

We are seeking feedback and comments from any professional scientist currently working in a discipline focused on the scientific study of any aspect of the nature of human beings. All feedback will be confidential. Your views and opinions will not be shared publicly or privately with anyone without your permission. Please respond by email to info@lgibooks.com for details on how to submit your comments.

Join the Human Nature Science Team as a Beta Tester?

The first goal of this project is to attract a core group of leaders in various human-nature-science-related disciplines who will agree to be “beta testers” to review and comment on proposed changes to the beta version of the manifesto once a month until strong consensus on the final wording for The Human Nature Science Manifesto 1.0 is achieved. Interested? No more than 1 hour/month time commitment for maximum of 6 months!  Please respond by email to info@lgibooks.com to schedule a Skype meeting to discuss. Only credentialed (or almost-credentialed) please. Include a link to your CV.