Introduction

My field of interest is how culture affects success. I have been interested in this since the youngest age as my mother is an immigrant from the third world and my father American and I saw from the youngest age how culture affects success and saw how poorly this relationship is understood. All current explanations are logical failures on their own individual merits but rather than elaborate on each explanation let me point out that the problem remains unsolved and no progress is being made anywhere in the world. So the problem needs new thinking, a full explanation of my ideas is a book length project I am currently working on. To introduce the reader to the general concept this is a simplified version. I do not expect many readers to be convinced or I would not be writing a book length version as that would be unnecessary. But a simplified outline of an idea always has its uses and that is what this is. I try to cover all the most important parts as briefly as possible, this is a skeletal model of the full model. I refer to this model of human behavior as the Regard Model for it revolves around humans as regard maximizers and this instinctive tendency being the obstacle to success. Cultures around the world have made uneven progress in trying to overcome the regard maximizing instincts we are all born with, they have made uneven counter instinctive cultural progress and this then leads to uneven success. I chose regard over other possible terms such as value and worth as in these terms imply intrinsic and positive qualities where one can be falsely regarded as having worth or correctly regarded as having worth. Esteem and self confidence have too many psychological and philosophical connotations and so regard was the choice. I understand that in academia they often speak of the Prestige Economy and recognize in some part the importance regard plays in human affairs. The Prestige Economy the academics talk about is in the end insufficient to explain human behavior and qualitatively unrelated to the Regard Model.

The Regard Model

Self interest is the only motive admitted by evolution and evolution is the creator of human nature and all our instincts and so our instincts exist as tools for the pursuit of self interest. Collective behavior serves self interest as the many will always overpower the few or the one. Forming groups and cooperating for mutual benefit will serve self interest and so human nature is inherently political. Some animals may not benefit from forming groups, we do and so have political instincts and these interests in the end serve only self interest as does all instinct. Morality is real and humans are more than animals but morality belongs to a different category than this examination.

Science is predictive understanding of unwilled phenomena. Nothing else belongs in this category. What we do is our choice but not what we feel and what our instincts instruct as this is not a choice but an unwilled phenomena suitable for study by science. Our willful decisions belong to philosophy, but the workings of our mind are unwilled and belong to science.

We evolved in a world where all wealth comes from nature and thus all our instincts evolved to guide our decisions in such a world and these remain our instincts even in this modern world where most wealth comes from human labor. Our instincts thus tell us that to become wealthy is not to create wealth but to gather nature’s bounty and where this bounty is competed for to win the competition. The many will defeat the few or the one in this competition. We instinctively know this. If there was no competition for nature’s bounty we would not need groups. Competition exists and so we need groups, the only motive for joining a group is self interest, the belief that by joining one will receive a larger share of nature’s bounty than one would alone. This likelihood for success, this morale, is the only motive for a group’s existence. If another group is viewed as more likely to succeed people will leave the less likely group and try to join it. People will remain in a group considered unlikely to succeed only if other groups will not allow them in.

In the world we evolved in there were no special methods to make one group more successful than another, the means available were universal and equal across all. So the likelihood of winning a competition was a result of numbers and willingness to sacrifice for the group. Numbers and willingness to sacrifice for the group are a product of perceived likelihood of success, the regard the group is held in. Success is determined by regard in a circular fashion as belief in future success is the cause of future success. The circularity of this logic is instinctively known by all people and instinctively viewed as true. As the group’s success is a product of the regard the group is held in the regard the group is held is is seen as the group’s most precious resource, even its only resource.

The group must be defined, its borders established. Rules for who is a group member are created and symbols and rituals to identify members. The group is pointless if the fruits of it efforts are shared outside of the group and borders must be made and defended. The group’s regard in comparison to other groups must be defended as regard is the only motive for membership and sacrifice and membership and sacrifice are the only source of success and so regard is then the only source of success. This is instinctively known by all. As regard is the source of the group’s success in gaining nature’s bounty the regard structure determining how group’s compare to each other becomes the distribution structure for resources. This is instinctively known and all interpret a reduction in regard as motivated by a desire to reduce one’s share of resources.

As regard is the source of all wealth it leads to describing for effect rather than describing for accuracy. Normally all inaccurate descriptions are less useful than all accurate descriptions. This changes only when an inaccurate description will increase the regard of the group. In this special case an inaccurate description is more useful than an accurate description. This is the only such case. As regard is the source of all success humans instinctively describe for effect rather than accuracy and that effect is to maximize the regard of their group and minimize the regard of competing groups. The more inaccurate these descriptions the better, though in all other cases the more accurate the description the better.

As the only motive for joining a group is self interest there is no loyalty to the group and members will betray the group and be slack in efforts. If not for this overt and covert disloyalty to the group the largest group would continually grow but it does not. Groups are vehicles for self interest and so the shifting conspiracies keep group composition and group status shifting.

We must have free will, or agency, to successfully operate groups. We must have a flexible process of decision making to observe when group members are being disloyal and then be disloyal to them. If our instincts were to always be loyal this would be disadvantageous as the disloyal would have all the advantages. If we were always disloyal there would be no groups. We must be flexible in our loyalty and observant of the loyalty of others and free to constantly and fluidly make political decisions. This agency beyond anything in the animal world gives us the freedom to rise above our instincts, something no other animal can do. The freedom to act contrary to our instincts is the only unique human trait, what makes us different from the animals. This freedom is a consequence of the flexibility needed to engage in politics.

Civilizational progress varies according to how far a culture has moved beyond these instincts. Moving beyond them is possible because of the agency needed to make political decisions. We are not always loyal, we are not always selfish. We have the agency to choose when and where and how much of either we are we do this according to our needs when operating on pure instinct but we have the capacity to rise above all this if we choose. Inaccurate descriptions are valued by human nature for elevating the regard of the group. This is beneficial in a world where all wealth comes from nature. Once we advance to creating wealth through human labor accurately describing and choosing the right method becomes the most successful approach. The fundamental act of human intelligence is using regard to choose between methods rather than people. Human nature instructs us to seek wealth through inaccurate descriptions which elevate the regard of the group. When we choose to rise above this and accurately describe things to best choose the correct method we make counter instinctive cultural progress. Cultures have made uneven progress in this direction leading to uneven success.

That some cultures are less successful is obvious to all. The standard opinion is that if the unsuccessful could simply choose to improve they already would have and thus something other than voluntary change is needed. This is incorrect, voluntary change is all that is needed. The motive for not changing among the backward cultures is the pull of human instinct which instructs us to use regard to choose between people rather than methods. To the backward the only method is the group, this is the only tool and its value is increased by regard assigned through inaccurate descriptions. The pull of these instincts is too strong.

There is a communication obstacle to encouraging the backward cultures to change. Any attempt to walk them towards the truth by slowly altering current descriptions into more and more accurate descriptions will always fall as it will be interpreted as an attempt to negotiate the regard structure. The backward cultures can only be moved to change by complete truth, not by a series of partial truths which come ever closer to the complete truth. Only overwhelming change is real change.

Stating the complete truth offends all groups, including the advanced. All groups define their identity around regard assigning rules which will be undermined by complete truth. All groups oppose using complete truths to advance the human race. They backward races favor using inaccurate descriptions which favor their cause to make use of instinctive behavior. The advanced groups either believe in gently moving the backward races closer to the truth through a series of partial truths each closer to the truth or to help by creating beneficial inaccurate truths which are therapeutic in effect. Neither of these methods work.

A historical break is need to make progress. Gradualism always leads to failure in this cause. An historical break involving complete truths and overwhelming change is the only answer.