Stuck in the rat race? You can get out.
According to history and science, Human beings gradually evolved from animals which is the reason they act and think alike, even after the evolution. Some similar traits are widely prevalent and comparable between humans and animals, in terms of feeding(chewing), sleeping, and making sounds which I regard as the greatest similarity between humans and animals. Just as much as animals, humans rely greatly on their instincts. Their faces and gestures are also highly expressive. The sadness of a sick monkey, according to Charles Darwin,
“ is as plain and almost as pathetic as in the case of our children. Man himself could not express love and humility, so plainly as does a dog, when with drooping ears…wagging tail, he meets his beloved master.”
Studies have also shown that humans possess higher cognitive abilities compared to animals. These abilities influences their sense of reasoning, planning and even the expression of meaningful ideas and emotions through words which include sending, receiving, decoding of information and giving feedbacks accordingly. The aforementioned abilities indicates a similar, yet clear difference between both species.
Irrespective of the degree of intelligence possessed by humans which enables them think, work and act higher than animals, it is worthy of note that some of the characters possessed by humans can be related to that of some animals. How so?
In a bid to explore which animal best fits our individual personality types, Isabel Briggs Meyers & her mother, Katherine Cooks Briggs who implemented the works of Swiss Psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, called the Myers-Briggs Personality Type, went ahead to analyse the animal traits associated with each personality type identified. In the course of this article, we are going to take a look at two dominant personality types and their animal comparisons.
Human Personality Types and their Animal Comparisons
❖ ENFP – Extroverted, Intuitive, Feeling & Perceiving
Individuals with the ENFP personality types characterised by their enthusiastic, warm and passionate approach towards life are associated to the Dolphin. This is because of the creative and inventive nature of these marine mammals. Dolphins are known for their ability to strive for survival while having fun in the process.
“The most sensitive and kindhearted of all types, Dolphins are dedicated to making those around them happy, working instinctively to create an ambient tranquil atmosphere of peace and acceptance. Imaginative and creative, they will often be at their happiest mulling over their own thoughts and ideas for significant periods of time.” – YourLeadershipUnleashed.
❖ INTJ – Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking & Judging
Basically identified by their analytical, creative and logical strides, individuals with INTJ personality are very rare and known to occupy only approximately 1.3% of the world’s population because of their dominant perceiving function and high intuition which a larger part of the population consider too tasking to practice. These individuals are associated with one of the most intelligent invertebrates which has also been regarded as an a example of advanced cognitive evolution in animals, The Octopus.
These, among other personality types are present in humans, including their animal comparisons. The purpose however of this article is to draw our attention to the continuous, never-ending struggle among humans to live, survive, for the most part, thrive in our ever evolving world.
Survival of the Fittest
“It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”
-Charles Darwin, 1876
This biological concept, also referred to as “The Struggle for Life” among other variations, was first brought to light by Charles Darwin where he proposed that all living things struggle for survival and tagged that great feat as the survival of the fittest.
According to Darwin, the key to evolution by natural selection was the struggle for survival. For individual plants and animals to triumph over their competitors and possess the survivor trophy, they have to appear unique in an advantageous way. Only then would they be able to produce offspring which would develop to fill any available ecological niche. As new species come into play, the aged deteriorates and goes into extinction. This is the struggle for life.
Darwin further analysed three unique forms of struggle among animals which we would identify using the following terms:
❖ Cooperative mutualism
This concept explains the process by which animals appear to work together for mutual benefits. For instance, territorial roars by male lions would likely prevent any foreseen attack by intruders; thereby benefitting all other animals within that space.
❖ Competition
This is a negative interaction that occurs when animals desire access to the same resources necessary for their survival, such as food and shelter. In contrast to the first concept, animals possess the tendency to compete to survive and maximise their own reproductive successes.
❖ Adaptation Strategies
Animals depend on their physical features for enablement to source for their basic needs, attract mates; but survival goes beyond protection of the known. In extreme cases, animals have to regulate their body temperature in response to a harsh weather conditions. Some animals resort to camouflage and mimicry to protect themselves from predatory attacks.
Being Human
Although, Darwin’s theory was mostly biological, further research have shown that this concept can be applied into the social life of humans. There is indeed a struggle to achieve success in different aspects of human endeavour. While some people measure this success by the quality of results attained after a particular venture, some others do so in terms of the quality of their relationships, some others, in terms of their level of power and influence on others, some others, by position and affluence, and the list goes on. Bottom line is that there is an unending struggle among humans to thrive, just as there is among animals.
Unlike the animals, human beings are regulated individuals with organised structures which influence the extent to which they can act given a particular situation. Due to the conformist nature of humans, they are pressured into the adherence to laid down rules and to display certain behaviours in the society, this therefore conditions their response to internal and external stimuli.
Social Behaviour
Social behaviour, a subset of human behaviour also has a major role to play in the way we respond to our environment. This concept refers to the influence of social interactions and culture on people. The level at which we are socially aware and responsive is determined by the diversity of our connection with the social whole, and the extent to which we have wholly gained consciousness of the happenings in the various spheres of life.
This is why the level of individual development is a pointer towards the level of development of society, and vice versa. But rather than dissolving into the society, we as humans, retain our unique self and make our contributions to the social whole, as in the case of Cooperative mutuality in animals. There is therefore no disputing the fact that human beings shape the society the same way the society shape humans.
Other influencing factors include ethics, social environment, persuasion, power and authority; some of which we will explain briefly in the next section.
Power, Powerlessness & Self- Dehumanisation
❖ Power
Power gives people the ability to control themselves and their environment, and influence the conduct and behaviour of others. This concept is regarded as rudimentary in human existence as it creates the constraints in which we function, yet is responsible for the structures that hold us together as a society.
The instruments for maintaining power vary from sector to sector. For example, in places of worship, power dwells in the numerical capacity of the congregation, while as a politician, power resides in your ability to fundraise and the scale of your voters. If you are a company, power sits in your ability to perform as a brand, your unique selling points, innovation, and technology. Power is also greatly influenced by wealth, education, information, among others. This therefore implies that the extent of power accessible to an individual determines how much control he has in a particular shot, and in turn affect his approach towards obtaining measurable results.
❖ Powerlessness
This concept is clearly the direct opposite of power. Powerlessness is simply the absence of power. It can further be explained as the condition where people’s behaviours cannot determine the results or desired reinforcements that they seek. People experience feelings of powerlessness when overwhelmed with situations that are beyond their control, and they cannot seem to find the strength, skills or competence required to deal with such realities.
It is however worthy of note that the feeling of powerlessness is subject to the individual, irrespective of the degree of negativity surrounding a particular situation. For example, an individual diagnosed with HIV is not bound by his present reality except he allows himself to do so. In other words, he would only feel powerless, not because of his condition, but because of how he perceives his condition.
Powerlessness can also appear as a form of learned response that occurs when an individual has been constantly placed in a powerless position for a very long time by a powerful force or person. This therefore follows that powerlessness has the ability to disrupt an individual’s sense of humanity, which is why many individuals have equated powerlessness with humility, modesty and fewer expressed opinions. This brings us to the next concept: Self-dehumanisation.
❖ Self- Dehumanisation
Theoretically, people experience self-dehumanisation not only when they perceive themselves as less human but also when they believe that others attribute less human traits to them.
People can see themselves in two ways:
Self-perception: this is when they adopt a first-person perspective, that is, they see themselves through their own eyes, or
Meta-perception: when they adopt a third-person perspective, thereby seeing themselves through the eye of others.
According to Dobson, there are two forms of dehumanisation: “Animalistic dehumanisation which entails viewing ourselves or others as being incapable of higher-level processes like self-control, while mechanistic dehumanisation is closer to how we think about robots and other things that don’t have emotions.” People dehumanise themselves when they have the mentality that they cannot do better, or are inferior to others. This concept is associated with low self-esteem because it makes an individual think less of himself and more of others, thereby undervaluing his abilities and skills as the case may be. This destructive phenomenon is prevalent in various organisations and could lead to exhibitions of unethical behaviours.
Comparison vs. Competition
Social comparison theory was first proposed in 1954 by psychologist Leon Festinger where he proposed that people have an inherent pressure to assess themselves, often in comparison to others. We humans make all kinds of judgments about ourselves, and one of the key ways that we do this is through comparison, or analysing ourselves in relation to others.
Social comparison theory states that individuals measure up their own social and personal worth against that of other people. People often compare themselves to others as a way of enhancing self-esteem, self-concept, and a positive self-image.
Social comparison takes two forms: Upward Social Comparison and Downward Social Comparison
Upward Social Comparison occurs when individuals begin to compare themselves to others who are better than them, hence they strive to achieve or attain the level which that person has attained, while Downward Social Comparison on the other hand occurs when an individual compares himself to someone who exhibits a lower prowess in a particular endeavour.
People compare themselves to people greater than them when they need an inspiration to do better, and compare themselves to to people lower than them when they want to feel better about themselves. Conversely, comparison becomes very unhealthy when it poses as a benchmark to measure success. When we shift our focus from ourselves and what we are able to achieve and place it on what others are doing, we are likely to lose our self-worth and self-confidence in the process.
A very similar concept to comparison is competition. Both terms are similar in the sense that they involve measuring up of one’s abilities to another’s. But here is the difference: while the guy who compares wallows in self-defeat as a result of his discovery, which in most cases turns out negative; the competitive guy goes ahead to strive for ways to meet up with, and even exceed the achievement of his counterpart. Competition encompasses every sphere of life; and as seen in the animal world, it is a prerequisite for survival.
As in the words of Dan Hawkins,
“If someone else is a champion, it can show us what is possible for us if we apply the same dedication to mastery that the other guy invested. If we can find someone who has conquered a Goliath which we are facing, it can inspire us to believe that we could also succeed.”
Collectivity over Individualism
Human beings are a social species that depend on cooperation to survive and thrive. Understanding how and why cooperation succeeds or fails is essential to solving many of the global challenges we face.
In the animal world, we have seen that the greater percentage of species live among themselves in groups, and they have embraced association and interdependence as paramount in their quest for survival, we as humans must also emulate that exemplary quality and engage in collective endeavours to ensure our survival here on earth.
This concept of cooperative mutuality is somewhat difficult for humans to practice because of our varying culture and self-imposed barriers which have kept us in isolation and lost in our own individual worlds to a large extent. Everyone, nowadays, is engaged in either positive or negative competition with another and cares less about working for the benefit of the organisations we find ourselves in, talk more of the society at large. This behaviour is dominating the work space, among other sectors where employees perform their duties for the sole purpose of getting the financial rewards, recognition, or power associated with the pulling of such great achievements. Successful organisations for example, require not only mind blowing innovations and projections to thrive, but also employees with good intent and qualities to attract potential partners.
In conclusion, we humans can learn from the animals, to employ our individual abilities and prowess whilst engaging our minds to strengthen mutual cooperation in our fight to survive, withstand forces, break barriers, and above all, thrive in whichever endeavour we seek to excel.
References
- Myers, Isabel Briggs with Peter B. Myers (1995) [1980]. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Mountain View, California: Davies-Black Publishing.
- Animal Kin: The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.
- The Expression of the emotions in Man and Animals: Charles Darwin, 1872.
- Dialectical Materialism (A. Spirkin) Chapter 5. On the Human Being and Being Human
- “Struggle for Survival; Survival of the Fittest”, 2015, Dilawar Sherzai
- Read more: http://outlookafghanistan.net/topics.
- Baumeister RF. The self in social psychology. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press; 1999.
- Skinner EA. Perceived control, motivation, & coping. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1995.
- Lindner EG. Human rights, humiliation, and globalisation In: Janus L, Kurth W, editors. Psychohistorie und Politik. Heidelberg, Germany: Mattes Verlag; 2004. p. 143 – 72.
- How Power Shapes our World: 2014 · Articles & Interviews By: Vikas Shah Mbe
- Albee, G. W., Joffe, J. M., & Dusenbury, L. A. (1988). Prevention, powerlessness, and politics: Readings on social change. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Kouchaki, M., Dobson, K. S., Waytz, A., & Kteily, N. S. (2018). The Link Between Self-Dehumanisation and Immoral Behaviour. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1234–1246.
- Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations. 1954;7(2):117–140.
