> I think Dan Ariely has the right attitude towards all of this [3]. When we design things like buildings and bridges, we take physics into account. We know that we can't build a bridge a certain way because it'll collapse. Similarly, when we're designing for people, we have to take human nature (behavioral psychology, whatever you want to call it) into account.
The difference, of course, is that the laws of physics are, so far as we know, immutable. "Human nature", informed by the culture of the moment, is not. When we accept the strategy of "tailor your behavior to human nature" en masse, we create a feedback loop, without a clear picture of where it leads.
I think you're agreeing with visakanv's point while misunderstanding his words. What he's referring to as behavioral psychology can't be changed by changing society - it's only changed by changing the genome.
This is patently false. There are no fixed constants at the level of social behavior. Nothing about society is "purely genetic", and even if it were, the human genome changes all the time.
There are probably trivially few fixed constants of social behavior. The animal's feedback loop of encoding stimulus and producing response in environment is, though, determined by genetics. For example, you how would respond to me stroking your shoulder is extremely contextual. The given nervous system's training which produces the response to said shoulder stroking is a complicated and chaotic system born from fixed genes.
The difference, of course, is that the laws of physics are, so far as we know, immutable. "Human nature", informed by the culture of the moment, is not. When we accept the strategy of "tailor your behavior to human nature" en masse, we create a feedback loop, without a clear picture of where it leads.