The Pathologizing of Pattern Recognition: How "Conspiracy Theory" Became a Thought-Stopping Cliché

The Strange Case of Selective Skepticism

We live in a curious intellectual moment. The same people who pride themselves on scientific thinking will dismiss pattern recognition about institutional behavior as "conspiracy theories" without examining the evidence. They'll mock others for "not following the science" while refusing to investigate claims systematically. They'll demand proof for ideas that challenge authority while accepting institutional narratives without scrutiny.

This represents one of the most sophisticated forms of social control ever devised: making the cognitive processes needed to recognize systematic collusion appear to be symptoms of mental illness or intellectual deficiency.

The Origins of "Conspiracy Theory" as Thought Control

Before examining the broader pattern, it's crucial to understand how "conspiracy theory" became a thought-stopping cliché. The term's modern usage as a dismissive label can be traced directly to a CIA psychological operation designed to protect the Warren Commission's conclusions about JFK's assassination.

In 1967, the CIA issued Document 1035-960, "Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report," which provided talking points for media assets to counter growing public skepticism about the official JFK assassination narrative. The document specifically recommended using the phrase "conspiracy theory" to discredit critics and suggested various psychological tactics to make questioning the official story seem unreasonable.

The CIA memo advised:

• Labeling critics as "conspiracy theorists" motivated by financial gain, political bias, or psychological problems
• Emphasizing that "no significant new evidence" had emerged (while controlling what evidence was considered significant)
• Arguing that any conspiracy would be too large to keep secret (ignoring compartmentalization and need-to-know principles)
• Claiming that other government investigations had confirmed the Warren Commission findings

This represents perhaps the first systematic effort to weaponize the term "conspiracy theory" as a tool for shutting down inconvenient inquiry. The success of this operation can be measured by how completely the phrase has been adopted across institutions and how effectively it now functions to prevent investigation of systematic collusion.

The Historical Irony

The irony is overwhelming when you consider the documented history of actual conspiracies. We have extensive evidence of systematic collusion across institutions and time periods - including the very CIA operation that popularized dismissing such recognition as "conspiracy theory":

• Government: Watergate, COINTELPRO, MK-Ultra, the Business Plot, NSA mass surveillance, CIA drug trafficking, FBI harassment of civil rights leaders, and justifications for the Iraq War.
• Corporate: Tobacco companies hiding cancer research, pharmaceutical companies concealing addiction data, oil companies suppressing climate research, tech companies manipulating user behavior, and financial institutions systematically defrauding customers.
• Media: Operation Mockingbird, coordinated narrative management, advertising industry psychological manipulation, and social media algorithmic control.

Yet somehow, looking for similar patterns in current events gets labeled as "conspiracy thinking" and dismissed as unintelligent or mentally unstable.

The Virtue Signaling Mechanism

Dismissing "conspiracy theories" has become a form of intellectual virtue signaling. It demonstrates:

• Social Status: "I'm too smart and educated to believe such things."
• Moral Superiority: "I don't spread dangerous misinformation."
• Authority Deference: "I trust experts and institutions."
• Rational Identity: "I'm a logical, scientific thinker."

The social rewards for this dismissal are substantial. You signal membership in respectable, educated classes. You avoid the professional and social costs of questioning powerful institutions. You maintain psychological comfort by believing you live in a rational, just system.

The Pathologization Strategy

Perhaps most insidiously, pattern recognition about institutional behavior has been medicalized. People who notice systematic collusion get labeled with:

• "Paranoid thinking" - reframing healthy skepticism as mental illness
• "Delusional ideation" - labeling institutional pattern recognition as psychosis
• "Conspiratorial mindset" - pathologizing the cognitive framework needed to understand how power operates
• "Lack of insight" - suggesting people who see systematic problems can't perceive reality correctly

This medical authority provides the ultimate conversation-stopper. Unlike political or social dismissal, medical pathologization uses scientific authority to shut down debate while making questioning the diagnosis seem like denying medical expertise.

The Anti-Scientific Nature of Conspiracy Dismissal

The most disturbing aspect is how anti-scientific this entire framework has become. Scientific inquiry requires asking uncomfortable questions, challenging authority, and demanding evidence for all claims - including claims about what's been "disproven."

Yet conspiracy dismissal typically involves:

• Rhetorical Sleight of Hand: Labeling things as "false beliefs" or "disproven ideas" without actually providing the disproof. Creating the illusion of settled science while avoiding the burden of evidence.
• Authority Appeals: "Scientists say" or "experts agree" without examining the actual methodology, funding sources, or potential conflicts of interest.
• Social Proof: "Smart people don't believe this," rather than addressing the substance of claims.
• Moral Framing: "Dangerous ideas" that must be suppressed rather than investigated.
• Ridicule and Derision: Personal attacks on people asking questions rather than reasoned responses to their concerns.

The Enforcement Mechanism

The system creates powerful incentives for ordinary people to become enthusiastic enforcers of intellectual conformity. People get social rewards for shutting down inquiry rather than encouraging it.

This creates a situation where appearing scientific (by dismissing "conspiracy theories") is rewarded more than being scientific (by investigating claims systematically regardless of their social acceptability).

The enforcement is so effective that even mental health professionals become unwitting participants, genuinely believing they're helping patients by discouraging "paranoid" thinking about institutional behavior that is, in fact, well-documented and ongoing.

A Simple Test of Intellectual Honesty

Here's a useful heuristic for evaluating arguments: How respectful is the person of skepticism and alternative perspectives?

Someone engaged in genuine truth-seeking will:

• Acknowledge the reasonableness of questioning their position;
• Address the substance of concerns rather than dismissing them categorically;
• Provide actual evidence rather than appeals to authority;
• Show intellectual humility about the possibility of being wrong;
• Welcome challenges because they strengthen good arguments and expose weak ones.

Someone operating from captured thinking will:

• Dismiss questions as "conspiracy theories" without addressing substance;
• Use social proof ("everyone knows") instead of evidence;
• Frame disagreement in moral terms ("dangerous ideas") to avoid analysis;
• Resort to ridicule and derision instead of reasoned response;
• Treat skepticism as a threat rather than a tool.

The Deeper Pattern

This connects to a broader understanding of how exploitation systems maintain themselves. The same psychological mechanisms that reward "going along" with harmful institutions also reward dismissing pattern recognition that might threaten those institutions.

Captured complicity - the evolutionary pressure to participate in existing systems regardless of their effects - extends to intellectual frameworks. People learn that noticing systematic patterns of elite collusion will result in social ostracism, professional consequences, and medical pathologization.

The psychological pressure to avoid this triple punishment is enormous. It's much safer and more rewarding to dismiss "conspiracy thinking" than to engage in the systematic analysis that might reveal uncomfortable truths about how power actually operates.

The Ultimate Sophistication

What makes this system so sophisticated is that it doesn't require suppressing specific information - it suppresses the analytical framework that would make sense of that information.

You can have extensive documentation of institutional collusion and systematic deception, but if people have been trained to dismiss pattern recognition as mental illness or intellectual deficiency, they'll never connect the dots.

This represents the perfection of social control: making the very cognitive processes needed to recognize systematic exploitation appear to be symptoms of psychological disorder or intellectual failure.

Reclaiming Pattern Recognition

The solution isn't to believe every alternative explanation, but to reclaim the legitimacy of systematic inquiry regardless of social acceptability. This means:

• Demanding Evidence: For all claims, including claims about what's been "debunked" or "disproven;"
• Following the Money: Examining funding sources, financial incentives, and conflicts of interest;
• Historical Context: Recognizing that systematic collusion is well-documented historically and likely ongoing;
• Methodological Rigor: Applying the same standards of evidence to institutional claims as to alternative explanations;
• Intellectual Courage: Being willing to investigate uncomfortable possibilities despite social pressure;
• Epistemic Humility: Remaining open to evidence that challenges preferred conclusions;

The Stakes

The stakes couldn't be higher. In a world where systematic collusion between powerful institutions is not only possible but well-documented, the ability to recognize patterns across those institutions becomes essential for understanding reality.

When pattern recognition gets pathologized, we lose the cognitive tools needed to identify systematic exploitation, institutional capture, and coordinated deception. We become intellectually defenseless against sophisticated manipulation while believing we're being rational and scientific.

The people who benefit most from this intellectual disarmament are precisely those who engage in the systematic collusion that pattern recognition might expose.

Conclusion

The pathologizing of pattern recognition represents one of the most effective forms of intellectual control ever devised. What began as a specific CIA operation to protect the Warren Commission's conclusions has evolved into a comprehensive system for preventing systematic inquiry about institutional behavior.

By making such inquiry appear to be mental illness or intellectual deficiency, it prevents the kind of analysis that might threaten existing power arrangements. The success of this approach can be measured by how completely "conspiracy theory" has been adopted as a conversation-ending dismissal across all institutions and cultural contexts.

Reclaiming the legitimacy of pattern recognition doesn't mean abandoning critical thinking - it means applying critical thinking consistently, regardless of whether the conclusions are socially comfortable or institutionally convenient.

In a world where systematic collusion is documented historical fact and ongoing reality, the ability to recognize patterns across institutions isn't paranoia - it's basic intellectual competence.

The question isn't whether conspiracies happen - the historical record makes clear they do. The question is whether we'll maintain the cognitive tools needed to recognize them when they occur, or whether we'll allow those tools to be pathologized out of existence in service of institutional power.

The choice is between intellectual courage and comfortable conformity. The stakes are nothing less than our ability to understand the world we actually live in, rather than the world we're told we live in.

Understanding that "conspiracy theory" began as a specific CIA psychological operation to prevent inquiry into government actions should make us deeply suspicious of how completely this framing has been adopted. When intelligence agencies develop techniques for controlling public discourse, and those techniques become universally accepted ways of thinking, we should recognize this as evidence of successful social engineering rather than organic intellectual development.

The question isn't whether we should believe every alternative explanation - it's whether we should allow our analytical capabilities to be constrained by psychological operations designed to protect institutional power from scrutiny.

The Evolutionary Rewards of Complicity: Why We Go Along with Bad Things

The Universal Puzzle

One of the most perplexing aspects of human behavior is how ordinary people consistently participate in systems that would seem to be objectively harmful. From corporate employees implementing policies they know are destructive, to citizens supporting military interventions they must suspect serve elite rather than national interests, to academics producing research they understand advances corporate rather than human welfare—the pattern appears universal across cultures, institutions, and historical periods.

We see intelligent, educated, morally concerned individuals working for organizations whose activities they would probably condemn if conducted by others, while maintaining positive narratives about their professional contributions. Pharmaceutical employees genuinely believe they're advancing human health while working for companies that prioritize profit over patient welfare. Financial services workers genuinely believe they're helping people achieve their goals while implementing systems designed to extract wealth from customers. Technology workers authentically think they're connecting humanity while building surveillance and manipulation systems. Why do good people knowingly work for companies, organizations, or governments that have been found guilty of deceitful, unethical, and illegal behavior?

Traditional explanations aren't actually very helpful: people participate in harmful systems because they're selfish, uninformed, or following orders from malevolent leaders. While these factors play roles in specific situations, they fail to explain the systematic nature of complicit participation across all human societies and institutions.

The revolutionary framework that "evolution is exploitation" and the then logical extension, that "all human culture is adaptation to, or exploitation of, evolved psychology," provide a more fundamental explanation. Mass complicity isn't primarily the result of moral failure, conscious disregard, or conspiracy—it's the predictable outcome of evolved psychological mechanisms that helped our ancestors survive but now serve to maintain exploitative systems at a massive scale.

Complicity as Evolutionary Feature, Not Bug

The key insight is that complicity is a feature, not a bug, of human psychology. The same mechanisms that would seem to have enabled our ancestors to survive in small tribal environments by maintaining group cohesion and avoiding dangerous conflicts now reward participation in large-scale systems regardless of their ultimate effects.

This isn't a design flaw that modern humans need to overcome—it's sophisticated psychological machinery that continues to serve individual survival interests even when those interests conflict with broader human welfare. Understanding this dynamic requires recognizing that what appears to be moral failure is actually evolved psychology operating exactly as it was designed to operate.

Willful blindness—the psychological tendency to avoid recognizing uncomfortable truths about one's circumstances—represents one half of this survival mechanism. But equally important are the evolutionary rewards of complicity—the systematic benefits that flow to individuals who participate in existing systems rather than questioning or resisting them.

The Evolutionary Logic of Going Along

In the ancestral environment of small tribes where humans spent 99% of their evolutionary history, questioning group narratives or challenging leadership carried extreme risks. Individuals who could "go along" with problematic group dynamics while appearing loyal and committed had significant survival advantages.

They avoided the social isolation, punishment, or exile that probably befell those who questioned established arrangements. More importantly, they could continue benefiting from group membership without the complexity or the social danger of appearing disloyal.

This mechanism operates through several interconnected psychological processes. Social proof bias creates the assumption that widespread participation indicates safety or legitimacy. Authority deference provides psychological comfort through the belief that leaders possess superior knowledge or moral authority. Identity protection motivates individuals to maintain narratives about their work and participation that preserve self-worth and social status. Economic rationalization justifies participation through family obligations and financial necessities, while role morality allows individuals to focus on performing specific functions well while avoiding responsibility for systemic outcomes. Diffusion of responsibility distributes moral burden across large groups, so no individual feels fully accountable.

The Automatic Nature of Complicity

The crucial insight is that these mechanisms operate automatically and unconsciously. The evolutionary rewards of complicity aren't typically conscious calculations—they're evolved psychological processes that make participation in existing systems relatively automatic.

Being automatic explains why complicit participation appears across all levels of intelligence, education, and moral development. Highly intelligent, well-educated individuals with strong stated ethical commitments participate in harmful systems not because they lack the cognitive capacity to recognize the harm, but because their evolved psychology rewards them for participation while making resistance psychologically costly.

The mechanism is so sophisticated that it allows individuals to simultaneously "know" and "not know" about the harmful consequences of their participation. Corporate executives can genuinely believe they're creating value while implementing strategies they understand cause environmental destruction. Government officials can genuinely believe they're serving the public while advancing policies that they recognize specifically harm certain groups and benefit elite interests. This isn't cognitive dissonance that needs to be resolved—it's functional psychology that enables individuals to maintain positive self-concepts while participating in systems that serve their survival interests.

The Social Reinforcement System

The evolutionary rewards of complicity become even more powerful when reinforced by social systems that have themselves evolved to reward participation and punish questioning. Organizations naturally develop cultures that make questioning fundamental purposes socially dangerous while celebrating enthusiastic participation.

These cultures don't need to be consciously designed—they emerge automatically because they're more effective at maintaining organizational coherence and extracting human energy.

Narrative reinforcement provides compelling stories about organizational purposes that allow employees to feel good about their participation. Social proof mechanisms demonstrate that "everyone else" is participating enthusiastically, making questioning seem deviant or dangerous.

Status rewards flow to individuals who demonstrate commitment to organizational narratives, while social punishment targets those who express doubt or criticism. Identity integration makes organizational participation central to personal identity, while economic dependency makes questioning organizationally dangerous to personal survival.

The result is a self-reinforcing system where going along becomes not just psychologically comfortable but socially necessary. Individuals who maintain functional cooperation with harmful systems advance within those systems, while those who insist on recognizing uncomfortable truths find themselves marginalized or expelled.

The Scale Effect: From Organizations to Nations

The same psychological mechanisms that reward complicity in organizations operate at national and cultural scales to enable citizen participation in systematic harm. Patriotic narratives provide compelling stories about national purposes that allow citizens to feel good about supporting policies they might otherwise question.

Media systems create social proof by demonstrating widespread support for government actions while marginalizing dissenting voices. Democratic participation creates the illusion of citizen control while actual policy decisions serve elite interests. Economic integration makes questioning national policies dangerous to personal prosperity, while cultural identity makes criticism of national actions feel like betrayal of community belonging.

This explains how entire populations can support or ignore policies they would recognize as harmful if applied by other nations. The mechanism operates identically across political systems because it's based on evolved psychology rather than particular governmental structures. Citizens in democracies, authoritarian regimes, and mixed systems all demonstrate the same patterns of rewarded complicity regarding their governments' harmful actions.

Historical Patterns: The Universality of Rewarded Complicity

This framework explains historical patterns of mass complicity that have puzzled scholars for generations. The participation of ordinary Germans in Nazi systems, the complicity of American citizens in slavery and genocide, the involvement of Soviet citizens in Stalinist oppression—all represent the same evolved psychological mechanisms operating under different cultural and political conditions.

In each case, the majority of participants were neither sadistic monsters nor conscious conspirators. They were ordinary people whose evolved psychology rewarded them for maintaining positive self-concepts while participating in systems they would have recognized as harmful if they had been psychologically capable of full recognition.

Gradual normalization made increasingly extreme policies seem acceptable through incremental steps that never required dramatic moral choices. Authority legitimation provided psychological comfort through the assumption that leadership possessed superior moral or practical knowledge. Social proof demonstrated that "everyone else" was participating, making resistance seem deviant or dangerous.

Identity protection motivated defense of national or organizational narratives that justified participation, while economic integration made questioning systemically dangerous to personal survival. Narrative sophistication provided compelling stories about serving higher purposes that allowed participants to feel good about their involvement.

The exact mechanisms that enabled historical atrocities continue operating in contemporary systems, suggesting that mass complicity in systematic harm represents a permanent feature of human social organization rather than a historical aberration that modern societies have overcome.

The Intelligence Trap: Why Smart People Go Along

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the evolutionary rewards of complicity is how they particularly affect intelligent, educated individuals who should theoretically be most capable of recognizing systematic harm. Higher intelligence and education don't provide immunity against complicit participation—they often make individuals more susceptible by providing sophisticated rationalization capabilities.

Intellectual frameworks enable intelligent individuals to develop elaborate justifications for participating in systems they would otherwise recognize as harmful. Professional expertise creates investment in organizational systems that makes questioning psychologically costly. Social networks within elite institutions reinforce participation while marginalizing dissent.

Cognitive sophistication enables complex moral reasoning that can justify almost any level of participation through appeals to necessity, gradual reform, or comparative harm reduction. Educational credentials create social status that depends on maintaining good relationships with institutional systems. Career advancement requires demonstrating commitment to organizational narratives regardless of personal doubts.

The result is that the individuals with the greatest capacity to recognize and resist systematic exploitation often become its most effective enablers. They provide intellectual legitimacy, sophisticated justifications, and cultural leadership that make mass complicity seem reasonable and morally acceptable.

This represents the ultimate expression of how complicity functions as an evolutionary feature rather than a bug. The psychological mechanisms that reward going along are so sophisticated that they can co-opt even the cognitive capabilities that might otherwise enable resistance.

Three Approaches to the Challenge

Understanding the evolutionary rewards of complicity as a feature rather than a bug fundamentally changes how we think about creating more humane social arrangements. If complicity serves individual survival interests through evolved psychological mechanisms, then traditional approaches based on education, moral appeals, or rational argument may be fundamentally inadequate.

There are three basic approaches to this challenge, with profoundly different assumptions about human nature and the possibility of social organization.

The "Humane Systems" Approach assumes we can design social, economic, and political arrangements that channel our evolved psychology toward beneficial rather than exploitative outcomes. This approach seeks to work with human nature by creating systems where our natural tendencies serve rather than undermine human welfare.

However, this approach may be fundamentally utopian given our understanding that evolution IS exploitation. Any system designed to "work with" human psychology will inevitably be captured by individuals and groups most effective at exploiting those same psychological mechanisms. The very features that make systems feel "humane" and psychologically satisfying are precisely the vulnerabilities that exploitative actors will target.

If all human culture represents adaptation to or exploitation of evolved psychology, then systems designed to feel good to participants are likely to be the most sophisticated exploitation technologies. The "humane systems" approach may simply create more effective methods for making victims grateful for their exploitation.

The Founders' Model: Structural Constraints and Regenerative Wisdom

The American founders represented a fundamentally different approach based on darker but perhaps more realistic assumptions about human nature. Rather than trying to create systems that channel human psychology toward good outcomes, they designed adversarial structures that assume human nature is problematic and require constant vigilance and structural constraints.

The founders understood that power corrupts and that even well-intentioned people are ultimately likely to exploit systems for personal benefit. Their solution was separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism—structures that pit different interests against each other to prevent any single group from capturing the entire system.

Crucially, they embraced the concept of regenerative wisdom—the recognition that systems naturally decay and require constant renewal, vigilance, and structural maintenance. This approach assumes that human nature is unchangeable and inherently problematic for large-scale organizations, that power will always be abused if structurally unchecked, and that no system can be perfected, only temporarily constrained through structural opposition.

The Wisdom Tradition Approach: Cultural Preparation for Inevitable Cycles

A third approach recognizes that both humane systems and structural constraints ultimately depend on human capabilities that may be psychologically unrealistic to maintain consistently. Instead of trying to create perfect systems or permanent constraints, the wisdom tradition approach focuses on cultural preservation of systematic thinking across generations and cycles.

This approach assumes that large-scale societies naturally cycle through predictable phases: growth, stability, corruption, crisis, and renewal. Rather than trying to prevent these cycles, wisdom traditions prepare for them by maintaining the knowledge, frameworks, and trained individuals needed to recognize patterns and respond effectively when opportunities for renewal arise.

Wisdom traditions work by embedding systematic thinking into cultural identity and meaning-making systems, making the preservation of analytical capabilities feel personally and socially rewarding rather than isolating or dangerous. Historical examples include Confucian administrative traditions, monastic conservation of knowledge, indigenous wisdom keeper traditions, and constitutional scholarship traditions.

The Limitation of All Approaches

Even wisdom traditions face the fundamental challenge that they themselves can be captured by the same psychological and social dynamics they're designed to recognize. The institutions that preserve systematic thinking may become part of the systems that need renewal. Every generation is born with Paleolithic cognitive wiring, meaning that with each generation, the game is replayed. 

This limitation reflects the deeper reality that the evolutionary rewards of complicity operate on all human institutions and cultural forms. Any successful approach to creating more humane arrangements must account for the fact that the psychological mechanisms that enable exploitation are the same ones that enable cooperation and cultural achievement.

The Synthesis: Working with Rather Than Against Human Nature

The most promising approach may combine elements of all three strategies, with wisdom traditions serving as the cultural foundation that makes structural renewal possible when crisis creates opportunity. Rather than relying on automated mechanisms or constant citizen vigilance, this synthesis acknowledges that renewal necessitates both individuals prepared for systematic thinking and cultural frameworks that render such thinking meaningful and socially supported. 

This approach acknowledges that we cannot escape the fundamental dynamic where evolution IS exploitation. Still, it suggests we can create cultural traditions that prepare for inevitable cycles of corruption and renewal. The challenge lies in designing mechanisms that preserve wisdom while surviving institutional capture and maintaining the analytical capabilities needed to recognize and respond to systematic exploitation.

Most importantly, this approach recognizes that the evolutionary rewards of complicity and the role of crisis in creating opportunities for renewal are not bugs to be fixed but features to be prepared for. Rather than expecting continuous vigilance or perfect systems, wisdom traditions can prepare for the inevitable moments when renewal becomes both necessary and possible.

So, the system must be both transparent and generative. Each generation must work to prepare the next generations to both understand the problem and recognize how the wisdom tradition offers a solution. 

The Uncomfortable Conclusion

The recognition that complicity represents an evolved survival mechanism leads to an uncomfortable conclusion about human nature and social organization. The same psychological processes that enabled our ancestors to survive in tribal environments now serve to maintain exploitative systems at scales our ancestors never encountered.

This suggests that mass complicity in systematic harm may be an inevitable feature of large-scale human organization rather than a problem that can be solved through better education, moral development, or institutional design. The psychological mechanisms that enable exploitation are the same ones that enabled human social cooperation and cultural development.

We are simultaneously the beneficiaries and victims of evolved psychology that makes us capable of remarkable cooperation and cultural achievement while also making us susceptible to systematic manipulation and exploitation. The same cognitive processes that allow us to function effectively within complex social systems also reward us for participating in those systems, regardless of their ultimate effects.

Understanding this dynamic doesn't eliminate moral responsibility or justify participation in harmful systems. But it does suggest that creating more humane social arrangements requires working with rather than against evolved human psychology. Instead of expecting people to overcome their natural tendencies toward rewarded complicity, we might focus on creating systems where those tendencies serve rather than undermine human welfare.

The challenge is designing social, economic, and political arrangements that channel the evolutionary rewards of complicity toward beneficial rather than exploitative outcomes—recognizing that the same mechanisms that enable mass participation in harmful systems also enable mass cooperation in beneficial ones, and that the difference often lies in the incentive structures rather than the psychological processes themselves.

This represents perhaps the greatest challenge facing human civilization: learning to organize ourselves at scale in ways that work with rather than against our evolved psychology, while acknowledging that our psychology itself makes us naturally susceptible to systems that feel beneficial while actually causing harm. The solution, if one exists, lies not in overcoming human nature but in understanding it well enough for each generation to design systems that reward the cooperation and cultural achievement we're capable of while minimizing the exploitation that same psychology enables.