Human differences

Equal and different

We humans are all almost identical in our basic physical and mental structures, that is, in our genes, especially when compared with other animal species. What changes from one person to another (and from one age to another in the same person) are mainly the contents of the structures themselves (i.e., what they have acquired through experiences), and certain variations of genetic or interactive origin such as organ size, skin and eye color, morphological features, health, resistance to fatigue and exhaustion, physical and mental performance, sensitivity, temperament, character. culture, tastes, etc.

In general, we can divide human differences into two classes: those of genetic origin and those of interactional origin. Obviously both contribute to an individual’s behavior, and it is useless, as well as impossible, to determine which are more important and to what extent. However, we can say with certainty that characteristics of interactive origin develop on the basis of those of genetic origin.

Human differences being obvious and undeniable, when we say that we are all equal, we are referring not to the physical or mental constitution of people, but to their civil rights and social dignity. This equality is established in democratic and liberal countries, where “the law is the same for everyone” (at least as a principle) and no discrimination (in public relations) is allowed with regard to ethnic, religious, political, sexual, performance, physical, etc. differences.

In any case, I think no one can deny that we are all different in the quality and quantity of our thoughts, feelings, and motivations.

Why should we study human differences?

Talking about human differences (especially when in public), is still considered politically incorrect by most, perhaps because many fear that this topic (consciously or unconsciously) will be used as a justification for racism, fascism, injustice or so-called social Darwinism.

In this regard, Henry Geiger wrote:

Differences between human beings are seldom discussed as such, because the mere fact of admitting or declaring that there are important differences between humans means that one probably possesses a theory that allows one to explain what gives rise to them, and today a theory that explains the causes of human differences is sufficient to start an ideological war. The first principle of a democratic society is the equality of human beings. To discuss human differences without appearing as one who wants to attack that principle is difficult, though not impossible.

This theme, however, is usually ignored by popular writers, for the reason that one who writes about human differences, unless he is particularly wise, usually has the air of someone who believes he is a little better than the rest of humanity, and a writer who does this has little chance of remaining “popular.”

But much can be lost by a society that fails to recognize and admit human differences. It may even lose an understanding of the real meaning of equality, and it certainly loses an appreciation of the many forms of human distinction that do not challenge the validity of the political principles of an egalitarian society, and may even support them indirectly.

Another reason why people avoid talking about human difference even in private is, in my opinion, the unconscious fear of finding themselves classified into some hyped-up, despised, socially useless or harmful, or simply losing human type : in a word, inferior. In fact, if one dares to say that one person is worth more than another, one must expect very harsh objections including, most likely, the accusation of sympathizing with Nazism.

As a result, outside of people collectively regarded as stars of entertainment, culture and science (and publicly celebrated as such), and excluding criminals and the mentally ill, everyone else is put on virtually equal footing, as if there were no significant differences between them.

In my opinion, there are several reasons why we should study human differences, and talk about them, more than we do.

The first is that when we detect differences between people, communities or lifestyles, we cannot help but wonder (consciously or unconsciously) which variants are better or more desirable than others. In other words, we tend to ascribe some relative value to each variant. This valorization (positive or negative) of variants obviously influences the choice of people we wish to imitate (as René Girard would say) or with whom we wish to interact.

The second reason is that among the main human differences are those involving tastes and preferences, so it is important to know the tastes of others in order to avoid behaving in ways others do not like, and to choose as partners people with tastes compatible with one’s own.

In fact, because of the increasing freedom of thought and behavior, and the consequent social diversification, two people are less and less likely to be compatible with each other. As a result, loneliness is increasingly common.

In this regard, a mistake we often make is to assume that others think like us, react emotionally like us, have similar morals, similar interests, similar motivations and similar fears, know what we know, that we and others suffer and enjoy for similar reasons, that our minds are similar, etc.

Another reason why the study of human differences can be useful is that it enables us to recognize ourselves in some type endowed with special psychological characteristics. Which is equivalent to knowing ourselves better. For example, the introvert personality type (which I discuss below) is little and poorly known, and introverts would be pleased to discover that there is nothing wrong with being such, in fact, there is much good in it.

In general we can also say that getting to know a person (or oneself), if it is true that we are all different, is impossible without resorting to a range of predefined types with which to compare oneself.

For all these reasons, that is, in order to know and evaluate others and ourselves better, each with its own peculiarities, needs and habits, I believe it is useful to deal rationally and scientifically with the problem of human differences. That is why I would favor the foundation of a Science of Human Differences. However, I fear that there would be too much objection and resistance regarding such a project, for the reasons stated above.

Pretending to be normal

Perhaps because of the need for imitation theorized by René Girard, and the consequent conformism prevalent in all kinds of societies, the perception of human differences undergoes a distortion, or a bias, especially regarding the subject’s differences from others.

The result of this bias is that the subject, wishing to be like others, tends to repress, remove (in the psychoanalytic sense) or hide (even from himself), his peculiarities or differences from others.

A consequence of this tendency is a general ignorance and confusion regarding the actual differences between human beings.

In fact, whatever one may say, even in our culture, which prides itself on being among the most liberal, human differences are not considered an asset (as is, for example, biodiversity in the plant world) but a problem. It is a problem because it involves diverse value judgments that the individual is incapable of assigning without using criteria shared with others. One then ends up not judging the different openly, even though he or she often considers it (consciously or unconsciously) as a threat to the established order.

In any case, humans are generally afraid of being different from others (i.e., from the majority of others) because they fear not being accepted because of their diversity. In fact, for the unconscious being different from others is a guilt that sooner or later is discovered and punished.

These psychic dynamics mean that the topic of human differences is generally kept as far from consciousness and social debate as possible, and that people compete to be as normal as possible.

Categories of differences and mutual influences

We can divide human differences into three categories:

  • psychological
  • physical
  • social

Psychological differences concern personality, that is, cognitive abilities, sensitivity and, more generally, the logics of behavior stored in the cognitive-emotional map (see the chapter Cognitive-emotional map).

Physical differences relate to physical constitution, health, energy performance and body appearance.

Social differences are about social roles, hierarchical positions, responsibilities, reputation, private property, group and community memberships, clothing and furnishings, and everything of cultural, political, ethical, and economic significance.

About physical differences and social differences there would be nothing to say in a book about psychology, except that they can have, indeed, certainly have repercussions on psychological differences, and vice versa. I mean that some psychological differences can be a consequence of physical and social differences, and, vice versa, some physical and social differences can be a consequence of certain psychological differences.

Objective, perceived, attributed differences

There are objective human differences, such as physical stature, weight, skin color, etc. Then there are perceived differences, such as beauty, authority, dangerousness. Finally, there are attributed differences based on objective conditions or perceptions. For example, it is thought that a more expensive product is better than a cheaper one, or that a university professor in a certain discipline (especially if humanities) is more competent than someone who does not have a professorship or degree in the same discipline, and so on.

The third case can be related to the trilateral relations I discussed in the chapter Trilateral Relations, Affective Consistency, Social Valence. In fact, by the principle of cognitive or affective coherence, we tend to believe that one who has a good reputation with a person we esteem is estimable and vice versa, that is, one who is despised by a person we esteem is despicable.

Psychological differences (personality types)

By personality types I mean a theory, or model, in which a number of psychological traits (or types) are defined against which an individual can be classified. In other words, it is a taxonomy of personality traits, detectable by means of special tests.

The personality types that I find most interesting among the most well-known ones are the following:

  • Introversion/extroversion
  • MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator)
  • Big Five
  • Eysenck’s Three Factors
  • Raymond Cattell’s 16PF (16 personality factors)

Introversion/extroversion typology was theorized by Carl Gustav Jung in his book Psychological Types from which I quote some useful quotes to understand the difference between introvert and extrovert.

“…the first (the extrovert) takes his bearings from external facts as they are given, the other (introvert) reserves an opinion that stands between him and objective reality. […] When one thinks, feels and acts, in a word, he lives in a manner directly corresponding to objective circumstances and their requirements […] he is extroverted. His life is such that the object, as a determining factor, manifestly possesses greater importance in his consciousness than his subjective opinion. Therefore he never expects to come across any absolute factor in his inner world, since factors of this kind he detects only on the outside. […] in the introvert between the perception of the object and the behavior of the individual a subjective point of view is inserted which prevents the behavior from taking on a character corresponding to the objective datum. […] The introvert’s consciousness does indeed see external conditions, but it elects the subjective element as the determining factor. […] Whereas the extrovert type relies mainly on what comes to him from the object, the introvert relies rather on what the external impression puts into action in the subject.”

To learn more about introversion/extroversion, I invite you to read my article “What is Introversion.”

The MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) typology is also based on C. G. Jung’s psychological types, but in addition to the introvert/extrovert trait, it includes three others, also taken from Jungian theory. The four traits are as follows:

  • Extroversion – Introversion (E-I)
  • Sensation – Intuition (S-N)
  • Thinking – Feeling (T-F)
  • Judgment – Perception (J-P)

Each trait forms a continuum between two extremes. A person can be found at any point on the continuum of each trait, represented by the letter identifying the closest extreme. A person’s profile can thus be expressed with four letters, for a total of 16 possible combinations (ISTJ, ISTP, INTP, INTJ, ISFJ, ISFP, INFP, INFJ, ESTJ, ESTP, ENTP, ENTJ, ESFJ, ESFP ENFP and ENFJ). For example, according to a test I took a few years ago, I belong to the ISTJ (Introversion, Sensation, Thinking, Judgment) type.

The Big Five typology, is based on the following five traits, each with two sub-dimensions indicated in parentheses:

  • Extroversion (dynamism, dominance)
  • Friendliness (cooperativeness/empathy, friendliness/friendly attitude)
  • Conscientiousness (thoroughness, perseverance)
  • Emotional stability (control of emotions, impulse control)
  • Open-mindedness (openness to culture, openness to experience)

Eysenck’s Three Factors typology defines three traits:

  • Introversion/Estroversion
  • Neuroticism
  • Psychoticism

Cattell’s 16PF typology defines 16 personality factors:

  • Emotional expressiveness (high-low).
  • Intelligence (high-low).
  • Stability (ego-strength-weakness).
  • Dominance (dominance-submission).
  • Impulsiveness (upwelling and downwelling).
  • Group conformity (strong superego-weak superego).
  • Audacity (boldness-timidness).
  • Sensitivity (sensitivity-hardiness).
  • Distrust (confidence-distrust).
  • Imagination (pragmatism-imagination).
  • Cunning (sharpness-engenuity).
  • Guiltfulness (consciousness-imperturbability).
  • Rebellion (radicalism-conservatism).
  • Self-reliance (self-sufficiency-dependence).
  • Self-control (self-esteem-indifference).
  • Tension (tension-tranquility).

Cattell also defined four additional second-order factors:

  • QS1. Introversion vs. extroversion.
  • QS2. Low anxiety vs. high anxiety.
  • QS3. Susceptibility vs. toughness.
  • QS4. Dependence vs. independence.

Personally, I tend to qualify people according to the following traits, with all possible caution to avoid bias:

  • degree of introversion/extroversion
  • tendency toward preservation/change
  • degree of physical and psychic sensitivity
  • degree of physical and psychic fragility
  • degree of courage
  • capacity for abstraction, analysis and synthesis
  • ability to conceive of complex ideas
  • tendency to lead (dominance) vs. be led (gregariousness)
  • capacity for self-control, self-discipline and self-analysis
  • capacity for self-criticism, conscientiousness
  • creativity

In particular, I tend to distinguish people into two categories:

  • those who accept the world as it is and try to adapt to it, and
  • those who do not accept it as it is and therefore criticize the mentality of most people who, by adapting to it without criticizing it, perpetuate humanity’s mistakes.

General considerations on personality types

In my opinion, the weak point of all personality types (including the one I prefer) is the difficulty in determining the subject’s position in the continuum of each trait, as this position, in addition to the fact that it may vary over time and depending on circumstances, may be closer or closer to the center, sometimes leading to uncertainty in type assignment. Therefore, the assignment of a type or weight of a trait in a complex profile is always approximate and arbitrary.

It is interesting that the introversion/extroversion trait is found in all the types mentioned, so we can assume that it is among the most important for a person’s social life. For this reason (besides the fact that I consider myself an introvert) I have devoted special attention and research to this personality trait (see my article “What is introversion”).

The purpose of this brief exposition of some of the best-known personality types was not so much to describe their contents as to show how difficult, subjective and arbitrary it is to differentiate and classify human beings on the basis of abstract types. This difficulty is also due to the lack of general consensus in academia on this issue, as well as on psychology in general. In fact, each personality type is linked to a particular general psychological theory, that is, to a certain conception of human nature.

Human differences as factors of cooperation and competition

Every human difference can be a factor of cooperation and/or competition. Take for example the characteristic that is commonly called “intelligence” (whatever that is). In choosing a partner with whom to cooperate for a particular purpose, it may be necessary for that partner to have an intelligence no lower (and sometimes no higher) than a certain level. In other words, a certain difference in intelligence (relative to the average) may be a requirement for a certain kind of cooperation.

On the other hand, the same intelligence may be a factor in competition in several cases. For example, when one applies to be hired by a company that is looking for people of a certain level of intelligence, so one may have several candidates competing against each other. Another example is political competition, whereby each candidate in an election for public office tries to prove to voters that he or she is more intelligent than the other candidates.

Competition over intelligence is almost always present in bilateral relationships, such as in couples, friendships, relationships between colleagues, etc. where decisions need to be made about what to do, where to go, what the priorities should be, etc. If there are no clear and shared hierarchical positions, it is expected that in case of disagreement one will do as the smarter person decides. It may therefore be important to determine who between two people, is the more intelligent one, because common choices may depend on such a determination.

Since human differences are both factors in cooperation and competition, they carry a great deal of weight in social relationships and interactions, much more than we think. In fact, in my opinion, every human being is concerned (consciously or unconsciously) about his or her differential status, that is, his or her position relative to the average and relative to particular people, with regard to certain characteristics considered desirable and competitive. For this reason, feeling inferior to others can be the cause of mental distress (what Alfred Adler called the inferiority complex) and compensatory psychic dynamics. That is, a person who feels inferior in a certain aspect of personality may strive to become superior to others in another aspect in which he or she is more competitive. The fact remains that the feeling of inferiority may be more or less well-founded, and the subject may attach more or less importance to it than it actually is.

For the above, a better knowledge and evaluation of human differences in general, and a reasonable measurement of one’s own and others’ differential status, can facilitate cooperation and resolve competitions as quickly and easily as possible.

Subject involvement in the perception of human differences

Human differences can be a problem when their perception and evaluation influence an individual’s behavior toward others. This depends on the meaning, value, and cognitive and affective implications that an individual associates with the differences he or she perceives, either between himself or herself and others or between third parties.

What are the most relevant differences for a human being involved in comparing different types of people?

I suppose that a difference is relevant to the extent that it affects the satisfaction of one’s own and others’ needs, especially with regard to cooperation and competition. As we have also seen in the chapter Interdependence, cooperation, competition, violence, authority, a person’s possibility of cooperation and competitiveness are related to his hierarchical position within the community to which he belongs, on which his productivity, his attractiveness as a partner, and his ability to defend and attack depend.

When choosing partners for cooperation, the evaluation of candidate differences is very important, precisely because, since not all candidates are equal or equivalent, some may be more advantageous than others.

The same principle applies when the subject sets himself up as a candidate (in competition with others) to be chosen by a potential partner, so the subject is led to compare himself with his competitors. Such comparison can give rise to envy, jealousy, competition and hostility.

As Alfred Adler taught us, the essential purpose of human existence is to realize a future that is more fulfilling (with respect to one’s needs) and more secure than the present by overcoming the obstacles that stand in the way of its affirmation. Obstacles are normally constituted by others as competitors (both violent and nonviolent), so each individual has a natural tendency to overcome others (or at least not to be overcome by them) so that he can defend himself against their possible violence and not be overcome by them in active or passive competitions. As a result, each person deploys his or her resources by trying to compensate for his or her inferiorities in certain activities with his or her superiorities in others, and tends to invest his or her energies and ingenuity in the activities in which he or she is strongest, neglecting those in which he or she is weakest and has little chance of improving.

For example, one who is endowed with great physical strength and endurance tends to engage in jobs and sports in which such gifts are required (even to put them on display), while one who is physically weak but endowed with above-average intelligence tends to avoid harder jobs and sports and to prefer occupations in which intelligence rather than strength is required. Equally, a particularly beautiful person tends to exploit the advantages of his or her beauty, while a particularly ugly person tends to compensate for his or her ugliness by investing in his or her cultural background, elegance, and so on.

Differences between individuals vs. differences between groups

The perception of human differences affects not only individuals but also groups and communities. Indeed, a person who is part of a certain community compares it with others; if he detects differences in a competitive sense in favor of another community, the following may occur:

  • if emigrating to the other community is possible (in the sense that one is sure to be accepted by that one in a desirable role) and there are no contraindications (e.g., severe punishment as a traitor by the community of which one is still a member), the person attempts to move to the more competitive community to enjoy its advantages;
  • if an emigration is not possible or has too high a cost, the person may develop feelings of envy, jealousy, or hostility toward the other community to which he or she cannot gain access and try to discredit it as much as possible.

The individual thus finds himself competing not only against others within his own community for the most coveted places in the various hierarchies, but also against members of other communities who compete with his own for political hegemony or possession of economic resources.

As a result of affective and cognitive balance (which we discussed in the chapter Trilateral relationships, affective coherence, social valence), the enemy is always bad and despicable (otherwise he would not be perceived as an enemy). In other words, the subject tends to see the differences between the members of his own community and those of the enemy community in a light unfavorable to the latter, especially from a moral point of view. This tendency has always been exploited by governments during wars, to prevent feelings of affinity or brotherhood from arising toward enemy populations, at the risk of weakening the aggressiveness of their own troops toward them.

Concluding remarks – The double bind of immoral competition

As has emerged from the above considerations, the most relevant human differences concern the cooperative and competitive capacities of each individual, namely productivity, political and economic power and aesthetic attractiveness.

Human beings are indeed, in my opinion, constantly concerned (consciously or unconsciously) with keeping their cooperative, productive and competitive capacities at the highest possible levels relative to those of others, because their survival, membership in one or more communities, possible cooperative roles and social status depend on it.

However, our culture, especially because of Christian influence, is, at least in words, opposed to competition and unequal treatment toward the less gifted. Indeed, Christian morality preaches equality, brotherhood in God, the right and duty of charity, and condemns competition as an expression of selfishness. Trying to be better than others, to surpass them, is therefore a sin in the unconscious of those with religious imprinting, except when it comes to Christian zeal, that is, having more faith in God and obeying him more and better than others do.

We are thus in a double bind, as Gregory Bateson would say. On the one hand we have the natural need to compete against others for both cooperative and defensive purposes, and on the other hand we have the need to conceal this need as it is considered immoral by Christian doctrine and by a secular culture that has failed, deep down, to free itself from its Christian roots.

In my opinion, in order to avoid the psychopathological effects of this double constraint, we must resort to humor, which enables us to move abruptly and without warning from a position of superiority to one of humility, and vice versa, without ever permanently fixing ourselves in either. (See the chapter Humorism).

Next chapter: Selfishness, ignorance, wickedness, indifference.