So, apparently, we're WEIRD. That is to say, Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. In their own way, each how affected not simply what we think, but also how we think. As a consequence, the authors call to task the general discipline of behavioral sciences (ranging from psychology to economics to evolutionary biology) for it's almost myopic sampling of American undergraduates, and the preponderance of those from psychology programs. Each of those adjectives carries with it a significant descriptor and marked, significant deviation both other subpopulations within each category, and from humanity as a whole.
Westerners are markedly different than non-Westerners in whole categories of cognition, ranging from visiospatial processing to basic notions of justice as played out in simple games. Americans are themselves unique from other Westerners, being more likely to employ errors of fundamental attribution (versus situational or role explanations) more individualistic and more prone to functionalizing work while minimizing interpersonal complications. American undergraduates are more individualistic still, preferring justice rooted in autonomy versus an ethic of community or divinity. Essentially, "WEIRD populations may often be the worst subjects from which to make generalizations."
Of particular attention were the notations on the heritability of IQ and the expression of genetic phenotypes, noting that even the characteristics long held to be the most stable, the most basic expressions of an inalienable ego, are mutable, subject to contextual development and expression. Despite IQ being highly heritable, it's expression varies considerably when compared across socio-economic statuses. Which is to say, even the basic core of who you are, your cogito ergo sum, is a function of what you are before it's a function of who you are.
I've always found the tension between immutable egos and social order fascinating. Skinner's Walden II can't be said to have inspired a revolution, but it represents an ontology of maximizing human potential through deliberate, conscious sculpting. But it contradicts the central thesis of evolutionary biology, that variability, mutations, and deficiencies are the price paid for advancement. It's seductive to imagine that if only we could operationalize the booleans for perfect facets of human behavior, if we found the courage gene, the entrepreneurial behavioral code, the confidence cure, we could enter a post-human space, transcend the human condition.
That discussion is tangential to the above cautions about using American psychology undergraduates as stand-ins for the human race, but it is always interesting all the same to explore the interplay between how we conceive of ourselves and of our societies. The paper is a reminder that even our fundamental assumptions of ego, of perception, of intellect are narrower than we imagine, and as broad as we could wish, if only we push the boundaries.
