Us and them is perhaps the simplest explanation of human nature. —Wayne Bennett (2014).
Appeals to human nature are ubiquitous, yet historically many have proven ill-founded. Why? How might frequent errors be remedied towards building a more robust and reliable scientific study of human nature? Our aim is neither to advance specific scientific or philosophical claims about human nature, nor to proscribe or eliminate such claims. Rather, we articulate through examples the types of errors that frequently arise in this field, towards improving the rigor of the scientific and social studies. We seek to analyze such claims rhetorically, cognitively, and epistemically. Namely, how do we think about human nature? Claims about human nature, we show, are susceptible to widely exhibited deficits in cognitive tendencies such as framing, confirmation bias, satisficing, and teleological perspectives, as well as motivated reasoning. Such missteps foster methodological, empirical, and psychological mistakes and biases. Specifically, they promote the naturalizing error, whereby cultural ideology and values are projected onto an apparently objective description of nature. Concrete remedies are offered to aid scientists in conducting and reporting their research goals and findings more responsibly and effectively (relevant also to educators and other communicators who convey these findings publicly). Recommendations include acknowledging that human nature claims are often context-dependent, seeking multiple critical perspectives, and explicitly labeling uncertainties.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Allchin, D. (2001). Error types. Perspectives on Science, 9, 38–59.
Allchin, D. (2008). Naturalizing as an error-type in biology. Filosofia e História da Biologia, 3, 95–117.
Allchin, D. (2015). Correcting the “self-correcting” mythos of science. Filosofia e História da Biologia, 10, 19–35.
Allchin, D. (2017). Sacred bovines: The ironies of misplaced assumptions in biology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Allchin, D. (2018). The politics of biodiversity-speak. American Biology Teacher, 80, 397–400.
Allchin, D., & Werth, A. J. (2017). The naturalizing error. Journal for the General Philosophy of Science, 48(1), 3–18.
Allchin, D., & Werth, A. J. (2020). How we think about human nature: The naturalizing error. Philosophy of Science, 87(3), 499–517.
Allen, G. (2011). Eugenics and modern biology: Critiques of eugenics, 1910–1945. Annals of Human Genetics, 75(3), 314–325.
Amundson, R. (2000). Against normal function. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, 31, 33–53.
Ardrey, R. (1966). The territorial imperative: A personal inquiry into the animal origins of property and nations. New York: Athenaeum.
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper Collins.
Ariely, D., & Kreisler, J. (2017). Dollars and sense: How we misthink money and how to spend smarter. New York: Harper.
Austriaco, N. P. G. (2015). Human nature as normative concept: Relevance for health care. In T. Schramme & S. Edwards (Eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine (pp. 273–285). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bailey, J. M. (2019). How to ruin sex research. Archives of sexual behavior, 48(4), 1007–1011.
Bain, P. G., Kashima, Y., & Haslam, N. (2006). Conceptual beliefs about human values and their implications: Human nature beliefs predict value importance, value trade-offs, and responses to value-laden rhetoric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(2), 351–367.
Bain, P., Park, J., Kwok, C., & Haslam, N. (2009). Attributing human uniqueness and human nature to cultural groups: Distinct forms of subtle dehumanization. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12(6), 789–805.
Barrett, H. C. (2015). The shape of thought: How mental adaptations evolve. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bennett, W. (2014). What babies and college football tell us about human nature. TeamWorx Team Building Programs website. Retrieved February 25 2014 from http://teamworxteambuilding.com/what-babies-and-college-football-tell-us-about-human-nature/.
Boulter, S. J. (2012). Can evolutionary biology do without Aristotelian essentialism? Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 70, 83–103.
Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brown, D. E. (2004). Human universals, human nature & human culture. Daedalus, 133(4), 47–54.
Buller, D. J. (2005). Adapting minds: Evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Buss, D. M., & von Hippel, W. (2018). Psychological barriers to evolutionary psychology: Ideological bias and coalitional adaptations. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6(1), 148–158.
Carlson, A. C. (2015). The natural family where it belongs: New agrarian essays. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Press.
Cherry, M. J. (Ed.). (2015). The normativity of the natural: Human goods, human virtues, and human flourishing. Dordrecht: Springer.
Curry, O. (2006). Who’s afraid of the naturalistic fallacy? Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 234–247.
Curtis, G. N. (2018). Appeal to nature. The Fallacy Files website. Retrieved June 10 2018 from http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html.
de Waal, F. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
de Waal, F. (2000). Survival of the rapist: Two scientists argue that plain old evolution explains why men rape. New York Times April 2, 2000, http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/04/02/reviews/000402.002waalt.html
de Waal, F. (2001). The ape and the sushi master: Reflections of a primatologist. New York: Basic Books.
Devitt, M. (2008). Resurrecting biological essentialism. Philosophy of Science, 75, 344–382.
Dobelli, R. (2013). The art of thinking clearly. London: Sceptre.
Downes, S. M., & Machery, E. (2013). Arguing about human nature: Contemporary debates. New York: Routledge.
Dupré, J. (2003). On human nature. Human Affairs, 13, 109–122.
Dupré, J. (2018). Human nature: A process perspective. In B. Hannon & T. Lewens (Eds.), Why we disagree about human nature (pp. 92–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eiser, J. R., & van der Pligt, J. (1988). Attitudes and decisions. London: Routledge.
Newsweek (1992). Is this child gay? Born or bred: The origins of homosexuality. 24 February 1992. Retrieved April 17, 2014 from http://newsweek.com/homosexuality-born-or-bred-20036.
Foot, P. (2001). Natural goodness. Oxford: Clarendon.
Ford, Z. (2016). Pittsburgh-area school to transgender students: It’s ‘irrefutable’ that you’re unnatural. Think Progress Retrieved December 19 2017 from https://thinkprogress.org/pine-richland-transgender-students-dcf967f62f4f/.
Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret mead and samoa: The making and unmaking of an anthropological myth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fuentes, A. (2017). The “Google Manifesto”: Bad biology, ignorance of evolutionary processes, and privilege. PLOS SciComm. https://blogs.plos.org/scicomm/2017/08/14/the-google-manifesto-bad-biology-ignorance-of-evolutionary-processes-and-privilege.
Fyfe, S., Williams, C., Mason, O. J., & Pickup, G. J. (2008). Apophenia, theory of mind and schizotypy: Perceiving meaning and intentionality in randomness. Cortex, 44(10), 1316–1325.
Gaspar, P. (2004). Is biology destiny? International Socialist Review, 38, https://isreview.org/issues/38/genes.shtml.
Gazzaniga, M. (2008). Human: The science behind what makes your brain unique. New York: Harper Collins.
Gelman, S. A., & Rhodes, M. (2012). Two-thousand years of stasis: How psychological essentialism impedes evolutionary understanding. In K. S. Rosengren, S. Brem, E. M. Evans, & G. Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 3–21). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naïve theory of rational action. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(7), 287–292.
Gilovich, T. (1993). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: Free Press.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gonzalez Galli, L. M., & Meinardi, E. N. (2010). The role of teleological thinking in learning the Darwinian model of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4(1), 145–152.
Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Gould, W. A., & Heine, S. J. (2012). Implicit essentialism: Genetic concepts are implicitly associated with fate concepts. PLoS One, 7(6), e38176.
Griffiths, P. E. (2002). What is innateness? Monist, 85, 70–85.
Griffiths, P. E., Machery, E., & Linquist, S. (2009). The vernacular concept of innateness. Mind and Language, 24, 605–630.
Guggenmos, C. J. (2012). Teleological reasoning in adults: Believing in the purpose of events. Master’s thesis, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY.
Guilhem, M. (2013). New princesses rescue girls from a distressed damselhood. National Public Radio 15 December 2013. Available at http://www.npr.org/2013/12/15/251157298/once-upon-a-time-the-princess-saved-the-environment.
Hannon, E., & Lewens, T. (Eds.). (2018). Why we disagree about huma nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions. New York: Routledge.
Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M., & Bastian, B. (2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 937–950.
Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399–423.
Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., Kashima, Y., & Bain, P. (2008). Attributing and denying humanness to others. European Review of Social Psychology, 19(1), 55–85.
Heick, T. (2019). The cognitive bias codex: a visual of 180+ cognitive biases. Teachthought.com website. Retrieved August 24 2020 from https://www.teachthought.com/critical-thinking/the-cognitive-bias-codex-a-visual-of-180-cognitive-biases/.
Heine, S. J., Dar-Nimrod, I., Cheung, B. Y., & Proulx, T. (2017). Essentially biased: Why people are fatalistic about genes. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 55, pp. 137–192). New York: Academic Press.
Heinrich, N., & Heinrich, J. (2007). Why humans cooperate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan or the matter, forme and power of a common wealth ecclesiasticall and civil (facsimile edition). Cambridge, MA: Hackett.
Hull, D. L. (1978). A matter of individuality. Philosophy of Science, 45, 335–360.
Hull, D. L. (1986). On human nature. In PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2. (pp. 3-13). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Huxley, T. H. (1894). Evolution and ethics (facsimile). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jackson, S., & Rees, A. (2007). The appalling appeal of nature: The popular influence of evolutionary psychology as a problem for sociology. Sociology, 41(5), 917–930.
Kahan, D. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Katz, L. D. (Ed.). (2002). Evolutionary origins of morality: Cross-disciplinary perspectives. Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic.
Keim, B. (2013). Human nature might not be so warlike after all. Wired https://www.wired.com/2013/07/to-war-is-human-perhaps-not/.
Kelemen, D. (1999). Functions, goals and intentions: Children’s teleological reasoning about objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 461–8.
Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 11, 138–143.
Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & Seston, R. (2013). Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: Purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1074–1083.
Kronfeldner, M. (2018). What’s left of human nature? A post-essentialist, pluralist, and interactive account of a contested concept. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kronfeldner, M. (2018). Divide and conquer: The authority of nature and why we disagree about human nature. In B. Hannon & T. Lewens (Eds.), Why we disagree about human nature (pp. 186–206). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kronfeldner, M., Roughley, N., & Toepfer, G. (2014). Recent work on human nature: Beyond traditional essences. Philosophy Compass, 9, 642–652.
Krueger, J. L., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Towards a balanced social psychology: Causes, consequences, and cures for the problem-seeking approach to social behavior and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 313–376.
Krupenye, C., Kano, F., Hirata, S., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2016). Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs. Science, 354(6308), 110–114.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
Levinowitz, A. (2020). Natural: How faith in nature’s goodness leads to harmful fads, unjust laws and flawed science. Boston: Beacon Press.
Levins, R. (1966). The strategy of model building in population biology. American Scientist, 54, 421-31. Reprinted in Sober, E. (Ed.), Conceptual issues in evolutionary biology (pp. 18-27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lewens, T. (2012). Human nature: The very idea. Philosophy & Technology, 25(4), 459–474.
Lewens, T. (2015). The biological foundations of bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewens, T. (2018). Introduction: The faces of human nature. In B. Hannon & T. Lewens (Eds.), Why we disagree about human nature (pp. 1–17). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lewontin, R. C. (1993). Biology as ideology: The doctrine of DNA. New York: Harper Collins.
Lieberman, D. (2013). The story of the human body: Evolution, health, and disease. New York: Pantheon.
Linquist, S., Machery, E., Griffiths, P. E., & Stotz, K. (2011). Exploring the folkbiological conception of human nature. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366, 444–453.
Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. (2001). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lyle, H. F., & Smith, E. A. (2012). How conservative are evolutionary anthropologists? Human Nature, 23(3), 306–322.
Machery, E. (2008). A plea for human nature. Philosophical Psychology, 21(3), 321–329.
Machery, E. (2018). Doubling down on the nomological notion of human nature. In B. Hannon & T. Lewens (Eds.), Why we disagree about human nature (pp. 18–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McGrew, W. C. (2015). The Cultured Chimpanzee: Nonsense or Breakthrough? Human Ethology Bulletin, 30(1), 41–52.
Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa: A psychological study of primitive youth for western civilization. New York: Morrow.
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Morgan, T. H. (1925). Evolution and genetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of human judgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Oreskes, N. (2019). Why trust science? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Piatelli-Palmarini, M. (1994). Inevitable illusions: How mistakes of reason rule our minds. New York: Wiley.
Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking.
Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York: Penguin.
Potts, R., & Sloan, C. (2010). What does it mean to be human? Washington, DC: National Geographic.
Potts, R., & Sloan, C. (2010b). Hall of human origins (curators). Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC, http://humanorigins.si.edu.
Ramsey, G. (2013). Human nature in a post-essentialist world. Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 983–993.
Reiss, J. (2011). Not by design: Retiring Darwin’s watchmaker. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Rettner, R. (2013). Government shutdown science: why human nature is to blame. Yahoo News 2 October 2013, Retrieved April 17 2014 from http://news.yahoo.com/govt-shutdown-science-why-human-nature-blame-134218785.html.
Richardson, R. C. (2007). Evolutionary psychology as maladapted psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richerson, P. J. (2018). The use and non-use of the human nature concept by evolutionary biologists. In B. Hannon & T. Lewens (Eds.), Why we disagree about human nature (pp. 145–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ridley, M. (1996). The origins of virtue: Human instincts and the evolution of cooperation. London: Penguin.
Ridley, M. (2010). The rational optimist: How prosperity evolves. New York: Harper.
Roberts, W. J. (1910). The appeal to nature in morals and politics. International Journal of Ethics, 20, 295–313.
Rottman, J., Zhu, L., Wang, W., Schillaci, R. S., Clark, K. J., & Kelemen, D. (2017). Cultural influences on the teleological stance: Evidence from China. Religion, Brain and Behavior, 7, 17–26.
Roughley, N. (2000). Being humans: Anthropological universality and particularity in transdisciplinary perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Saad, G. (2011). The consuming instinct: What juicy burgers, Ferraris, pornography, and gift giving reveal about human nature. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Sacks, O. (2008). Musicophilia: Tales of music and the brain. New York: Vintage.
Sadedin, S. (2017). Science says the biological claims in the Google Anti-Diversity Manifesto are dead wrong. Quora, https://www.inc.com/quora/science-says-the-biological-claims-in-the-google-a.html.
Sahlins, M. D. (2008). The western illusion of human nature. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Samuels, R. (2012). Science and human nature. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 70, 1–28.
Sapolsky, R. (2017). Behave: The biology of humans at our best and worst. London: Vintage.
Schiebinger, L. (1993). Why mammals are called mammals: Gender politics in eighteenth-century natural history. The American Historical Review, 98(2), 382–411.
Schmitt, D. P., & Pilcher, J. J. (2004). Evaluating evidence of psychological adaptation: How do we know one when we see one? Psychological Science, 15, 643–649.
Shankman, P. (2009). The trashing of Margaret Mead: Anatomy of an anthropological controversy. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Shankman, P. (2013). The “fateful hoaxing” of Margaret mead: A cautionary tale. Current Anthropology, 54(1), 51–70.
Shermer, M. (2012). Shock and awe: Replicating Milgram’s shock experiments reveals not blind obedience but deep moral conflict. Scientific American, 307(5), 86.
Shubin, N. (2008). Your inner fish: a journey into the 3.5-billion-year history of the human body. New York: Knopf Doubleday.
Simon, H. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–139.
Solinas, M. (2015). From aristotle’s teleology to darwin’s genealogy: The stamp of inutility. London: Macmillan.
Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stanford, P. K. (2006). Exceeding our grasp: Science, history, and the problem of unconceived alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stotz, K., & Griffiths, P. (2018). A developmental systems account of human nature. In B. Hannon & T. Lewens (Eds.), Why we disagree about human nature (pp. 58–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sunderland, S. (1992). Irrationality: Why we don’t think straight. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Sutherland, S. (2013). Irrationality: The enemy within. London: Pinter and Martin.
Tattersall, I. (1998). Becoming human: Evolution and human uniqueness. San Diego: Harcourt Brace.
Tattersall, I., & DeSalle, R. (2007). What makes us human? (curators) Hall of Human Origins. Am Mus Nat Hist, New York, www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/human/.
Taylor, H. (2013). Connecting interdisciplinary dots: Songbirds, ‘white rats’ and human exceptionalism. Social Science Information, 52(2), 287–306.
TFP Student Action (2014). Ten reasons why homosexual “marriage” is harmful and must be opposed. Retrieved April 17 2014 from www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html.
Thornhill, R., & Palmer, C. T. (2000). A natural history of rape: Biological bases of sexual coercion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tybur, J. M., Miller, G. F., & Gangestad, S. G. (2007). Testing the controversy: An empirical examination of adaptationists’ political attitudes. Human Nature, 18, 313–328.
Varella, M. A. C. (2016). Using randomness and history Darwin breaks Aristotle’s conceptual pillars about natural world. Human Ethology Bulletin, 31(2), 56–62.
Varella, M. A. C. (2018). The biology and evolution of three psychological tendencies to anthropomorphize biology and evolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–21.
Varella, M. A. C., Santos, I. B. C., Ferreira, J. H. B. P., & Bussab, V. S. R. (2013). Misunderstandings in applying evolution to human mind and behavior and its causes: A systematic review. EvoS Journal: The Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium, 5(1), 81–107.
Walker, A. T. (2017). Transgenderism and the abolition of man. National Review online, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445335/transgenderism-battles-human-nature-biology-will-lose.
Walter, C. (2006). Thumbs, toes, and tears: And other things that make us human. New York: Walker.
Werth, A. J. (2012). Avoiding the pitfall of progress and associated perils of evolutionary education. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 5(2), 249–265.
Werth, A. J., & Allchin, D. (2020). Teleology’s long shadow. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 13(4), 1–11.
Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wrangham, R. (2019). The goodness paradox: The strange relation between virtue and violence in human history. New York: Pantheon.
Ziman, J. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zimring, J. C. (2019). What science is and how it really works. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zuk, M. (2013). Paleofantasy: Why evolution really tells us about sex, diet and how we live. New York: Norton.
The authors state that they have no funding sources to report.
Conflict of interest
The authors that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Werth, A.J., Allchin, D. How we Think About Human Nature: Cognitive Errors and Concrete Remedies. Found Sci (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09726-5
- Cognitive heuristics
- Error types
- Public understanding of science