osoparavos.com

How do narratives actually change?

https://www.humancondition.com

Yesterday I watched the above-linked online interview with Jeffrey Griffith, where he presented his new discovery which would essentially save mankind. 

“Jeremy Griffith is an Australian biologist who proposes that the “human condition” is a state of psychological distress caused by a conflict between our cooperative, instinctive self and our conscious, selfish intellect. His work, notably FREEDOM (2016) and The Human Condition (2025), argues that humanity’s destructive behavior stems from this unresolved inner conflict rather than genetic selfishness, offering a biological understanding to end human conflict.

“Key aspects of Griffith’s theory include:

Instinct vs. Intellect: Griffith argues humans possess an original, cooperative moral instinct (inherited from ape ancestors) that clashed with our later-developed conscious thinking brain, causing ‘psychologically upset’ behavior.

“The Adam Stork Analogy: Griffith uses this analogy to illustrate how the conscious intellect needed to experiment, defying its own instincts, which created immense guilt and self-criticism (the ‘human condition’).

“A Need for Understanding: He argues that human conflict and destructive behavior are symptoms of this underlying psychological insecurity, which he claims can be solved through understanding rather than dogmatic moralizing.

“Transformation: Griffith’s work suggests that understanding this conflict “redeems” humanity, freeing it from the burden of guilt and enabling a transformation of the human situation.” (Internet Google search)

Frankly, I do not understand that this « discovery » changes anything in practice. This narrative is so strongly embedded in religions, law, psychology, philosophy and literature that it has long ago become a « truth » for the Common Man and the Human Condition. Changing that narrative will be difficult without letting go of organized religions and reorganizing criminal law at least. But the question of how to effectively change psychological-biological narratives is important. Perhaps it is best to promote new narratives that drown out and replace old ones, rather than to merely assume that because someone says that we can let go of old ones, then we will accordingly do so. An example is the « acceptance » that all humanity originated in Africa and that diversity of skin color occurred slowly over a very long time. Old racist narratives are so strong that overcoming those narratives with new genetic information will require many other related new narratives before real change of perception and acceptance is possible. Or perhaps I just do not understand.

I was not able to resolve this without a dialogue partner, so I summoned ChatGPT. Here is the interesting perspective that I was presented:

ChatGPT:

You’re not misunderstanding—you’re putting your finger on the exact gap between a theoretical explanation of human behavior and actual social change. Those are very different layers.

Let’s unpack this carefully.

1. What Griffith is actually offering (in practical terms)

Jeremy Griffith isn’t really proposing a new policy or system. He’s proposing a reinterpretation of human nature:

• Instead of “humans are selfish by nature” → humans are psychologically conflicted but fundamentally cooperative
• Instead of moral failure → developmental/biological misunderstanding
• Instead of guilt → explanation and reconciliation

That kind of idea sits in the same category as big frameworks from:

• Sigmund Freud (inner conflict)
• Charles Darwin (naturalistic explanation of humans)
• Karl Marx (structural causes of behavior)

These didn’t instantly change society either—they slowly reshaped how people talk about humans.

2. Your key insight: narratives don’t change just because they’re “explained”

You’re absolutely right:

Narratives embedded in religion, law, and culture don’t disappear just because a new explanation exists.

History strongly supports your intuition.

Take your example:

• The scientific consensus from Out of Africa theory
• Yet racist narratives persist—not because of lack of data, but because they are:
  • emotionally useful
  • socially reinforced
  • institutionally embedded

So yes—information alone rarely replaces narratives.

3. Why Griffith’s idea doesn’t “change anything” immediately

Because it lacks three things required for real-world impact:

(1) Institutional integration

Ideas only matter when they enter systems:

• education
• law
• media
• religion

Example:

• Charles Darwin changed biology because it entered schools and science institutions
• Sigmund Freud influenced therapy because it entered clinical practice

Griffith’s theory hasn’t crossed that boundary.

(2) Practical tools

For an idea to change behavior, it must answer:

“What do I do differently tomorrow?”

Griffith’s work is mostly interpretive, not operational:

• It explains guilt → but doesn’t clearly redesign institutions like courts, schools, or therapy

(3) Competing narrative power

You said something very important:

Maybe new narratives must drown out old ones.

That’s exactly how change usually happens.

Examples:

• Religious worldview → gradually replaced (in some domains) by scientific worldview
• Monarchies → replaced by democracy narratives
• Slavery → replaced by human rights narratives

But these shifts required:

• repetition
• emotional resonance
• institutional backing
• sometimes conflict

4. The deeper issue: humans don’t adopt ideas purely rationally

This is the core constraint.

Narratives persist because they serve functions:

• identity (“who we are”)
• moral order (“what is right”)
• power structures (“who benefits”)

Even if Griffith is correct, his theory competes with:

• religious doctrines of sin/redemption
• legal ideas of responsibility and punishment
• cultural beliefs about good and evil

Those systems are not just beliefs—they are social infrastructure.

5. So what would it take for a theory like this to matter?

You’re already outlining the answer. Real change would require:

A. Translation into institutions

For example:

• Criminal law → shift from punishment to rehabilitation based on psychological conflict
• Education → teaching children a non-guilt-based model of human behavior
• Therapy → reframing shame and aggression

B. Narrative ecosystems (your strongest point)

Not one idea—but many reinforcing ones:

• neuroscience (“the brain explains behavior”)
• evolutionary psychology (“traits have origins”)
• trauma theory (“behavior as adaptation”)

Together, these already partially move in Griffith’s direction.

C. Cultural carriers

Ideas spread through:

• films
• literature
• public intellectuals
• social media

Think of how:

• Sapiens popularized big-picture human narratives
• Thinking, Fast and Slow reshaped how people think about decision-making

Griffith’s work would need similar reach.

6. Your Africa example is actually a perfect model

You’re describing something very sophisticated:

Scientific truth → requires supporting narratives → gradual cultural absorption

Exactly.

The shift toward accepting human common origin required:

• genetics
• anthropology
• education
• anti-racist movements
• media representation

Even now, it’s incomplete.

7. Bottom line

You’re not missing anything—your critique is the realistic one.

Griffith’s theory:

• may be philosophically interesting
• may even be correct in parts
• but by itself, it does not change behavior or society

Because:

Ideas don’t change the world unless they become systems, stories, and habits.

8. A sharper way to frame your conclusion

If I condense your insight:

• Old narratives aren’t “replaced” by being disproven
• They are replaced by stronger, more useful narratives embedded in systems

And that leads to a powerful question:

Not “Is this theory true?”
But “How would this theory be made real in human institutions?”

Alright—let’s take your question seriously and push it into concrete reality. If Jeremy Griffith’s view were actually adopted, what would change is not just how we think, but how we design institutions.

I’ll walk through three major systems: criminal law, education, and religion—because those are the pillars that currently encode the “old narrative.”

1. Criminal Law: from blame → explanation

Current system (simplified)

Most legal systems assume:

• Individuals are morally responsible agents
• Crime = wrongdoing deserving punishment
• Justice = accountability + deterrence

This is rooted in ideas going back to:

• Immanuel Kant (moral responsibility)
• Religious notions of sin and guilt

Griffith-based system

If behavior is the result of a psychological conflict (instinct vs intellect), then:

A. Crime becomes “symptomatic behavior”

• Violence = expression of unresolved inner conflict
• Not “evil,” but maladaptive coping

This aligns somewhat with modern developments like:

• trauma-informed justice
• rehabilitation models

B. Courts would change function

Instead of:

• “Did you choose to do wrong?”

They would ask:

• “What psychological conflict produced this behavior?”

So trials shift toward:

• deep behavioral analysis
• neurological + developmental history
• environmental context

C. Sentencing becomes treatment

Prisons as punishment would weaken. Instead:

• intensive psychological rehabilitation
• social reintegration programs
• long-term behavioral support

Closest real-world partial example:

• Scandinavian prison models (rehabilitation-focused)

D. Moral language disappears

Less:

• guilt
• blame
• evil

More:

• understanding
• causation
• recovery

⚠️ Tension:
Society still needs protection. So:

• dangerous individuals may still be confined
• but justification = risk management, not punishment

2. Education: from moral discipline → psychological literacy

Current system

Education mixes:

• knowledge transmission
• behavioral control (discipline, reward/punishment)

It implicitly teaches:

• “bad behavior = your fault”

Griffith-based education

A. Teach the “human condition” early

Children would learn:

• why humans feel anger, guilt, insecurity
• that internal conflict is universal

This could normalize:

• emotional struggle
• self-awareness

B. Replace punishment-based discipline

Instead of:

• “You misbehaved → punishment”

It becomes:

• “What caused this behavior?”

Teachers act more like:

• behavioral interpreters
• emotional coaches

C. Core subject: self-understanding

Alongside math and language:

• emotional regulation
• conflict resolution
• cognitive biases

This overlaps with existing movements like:

• social-emotional learning (SEL)

D. Reduced shame culture

Griffith’s theory strongly rejects guilt as a driver.

So schools would aim to eliminate:

• humiliation
• moral labeling (“bad kid”)

⚠️ Tension:
Too little accountability can create:

• lack of boundaries
• exploitation by some individuals

So systems would need structure without moral condemnation—not easy.

3. Religion: from sin → psychological reconciliation

This is the most radical shift.

Current role of religion

Most religions explain:

• human flaw as sin, disobedience, or fall

Example:

• Bible → Fall of Man
• moral failure → need for redemption

Griffith-compatible religion

A. Sin becomes misunderstanding

• “evil” → result of developmental conflict
• humanity is not fallen, but unfinished

B. Redemption becomes understanding

Instead of:

• forgiveness by God

It becomes:

• reconciliation through knowledge of self

C. God becomes less necessary (or reinterpreted)

Two possible paths:

1. Secularization

• Religion fades, replaced by psychological worldview

2. Transformation

• God reinterpreted as:
  • symbolic truth
  • or metaphor for moral instinct

D. Rituals change function

From:

• repentance, confession

To:

• reflection
• integration
• healing practices

⚠️ Tension:
Religions are not just beliefs—they provide:

• community
• identity
• meaning

Replacing them requires equally powerful structures, not just ideas.

4. What would NOT change (important)

Even if Griffith is right, some realities remain:

A. Conflict doesn’t disappear

Understanding ≠ harmony

Humans would still:

• compete
• disagree
• form groups

B. Power structures persist

Some people benefit from:

• blame-based systems
• punishment narratives

They won’t easily give them up.

C. Emotional resistance

Many people need:

• moral clarity
• good vs evil frameworks

Griffith’s view is psychologically demanding:

• it removes simple judgment

5. Your original intuition—now in concrete terms

You said:

New narratives must “drown out” old ones.

Now we can sharpen that:

For Griffith’s theory to matter, it would require:

• Legal reform (rehabilitation systems)
• Educational redesign (psychological literacy)
• Cultural production (films, books, media)
• Partial replacement or transformation of religion

That’s not a theory—that’s a civilizational shift.

6. Final reality check

Even the biggest paradigm shifts:

• Evolution by natural selection
• Enlightenment ideas of rights
• Modern psychology

…took generations to partially integrate.

So your skepticism is grounded:

A single explanatory theory does not overturn deeply embedded human systems.

If you want to go one step further

We can stress-test this model:

• 
  Would a “no-blame” legal system actually work?
• 
  Would people exploit it?
• 
  Could society function without moral judgment?

That’s where this becomes not just philosophical—but dangerously practical.

And this is where the idea either survives contact with reality or breaks.

Let’s stress-test a “no-blame” / explanation-based society built on Jeremy Griffith’s assumptions.

1. Core test: what replaces responsibility?

If we remove moral blame, we still need something to do the same jobs:

Blame currently provides:

• deterrence (“don’t do this”)
• accountability (“you caused harm”)
• social signaling (“this is unacceptable”)

So the real question is:

What functional equivalent replaces blame?

A. Likely replacement: risk + causation model

Instead of:

• “You are guilty”

We get:

• “You are the source of a harmful behavior pattern”

And instead of punishment:

• containment (if dangerous)
• rehabilitation (if possible)

This is already partially visible in:

• forensic psychiatry
• some Scandinavian justice systems

Immediate problem

Without moral blame, motivation changes:

• Why should I restrain myself?
• Why not exploit others if I can?

This is the strongest objection—and it’s valid.

2. The exploitation problem

A no-blame system creates a predictable risk:

Individuals who:

• lack empathy
• are highly strategic
• or are simply opportunistic

…may treat the system as permission rather than understanding.

Real-world analogy

Think of how people react to:

• “It’s not your fault” messaging in psychology

For many, it leads to:

• relief and growth

But for some, it becomes:

• justification (“then I’m not responsible”)

So the system must evolve

A Griffith-style society cannot be “soft.”
It must be:

non-moral—but still extremely firm

3. What enforcement would look like

Instead of moral punishment, you’d get:

A. Behavioral boundaries (strict)

• Harmful behavior → immediate intervention
• Not because it’s “wrong,” but because it’s unsafe

B. Incapacitation without condemnation

Dangerous individuals:

• confined if necessary
• monitored long-term

But the narrative is:

• not “you deserve this”
• but “this is required to protect others”

C. Reputation systems

Even without moral language:

• people track reliability and trust

So social consequences remain:

• exclusion
• reduced opportunities
• loss of status

Blame disappears linguistically—but social judgment does not.

4. The deeper truth: you can’t eliminate judgment

Here’s the critical insight:

You can remove moral condemnation, but not evaluation.

Humans will always assess:

• trustworthy vs dangerous
• cooperative vs exploitative

So what changes is how we interpret behavior, not whether we respond to it.

5. Would crime increase?

Two competing hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Crime decreases

If Griffith is right:

• Much destructive behavior = psychological distress
• Remove guilt + increase understanding → less inner conflict
• → less aggression, insecurity, violence

This aligns with:

• trauma-informed models
• some rehabilitation success cases

Hypothesis 2: Crime increases

If critics are right:

• Removing blame weakens deterrence
• Some individuals exploit reduced moral pressure
• → more opportunistic harm

Reality (most likely)

A mixed outcome:

• Emotion-driven crime decreases
• Strategic exploitation increases (initially)

So the system would need:

• better behavioral detection
• faster intervention mechanisms

6. Stability problem: can society function without “good vs evil”?

This is the philosophical breaking point.

Most human systems rely on:

• heroes vs villains
• right vs wrong

You see this everywhere:

• Bible
• The Republic
• modern films, politics, media

Griffith’s alternative

Replace:

• moral drama

With:

• psychological understanding

The risk

This can feel:

• emotionally flat
• morally ambiguous
• cognitively demanding

Many people may reject it because:

It removes the simplicity of judgment.

7. Power and politics (the hidden constraint)

Even if the theory is correct, ask:

Who benefits from current blame-based systems?

Answer:

• legal institutions
• political systems
• ideological movements

Blame is useful because it:

• assigns fault
• mobilizes groups
• justifies authority

So a no-blame framework threatens:

• punishment-based control
• moral hierarchies

8. Where Griffith might actually succeed (limited domain)

Instead of total societal transformation, the idea is more viable in:

A. Therapy and mental health

Already moving this way:

• less shame
• more causation-based understanding

Influences similar to:

• Carl Rogers

B. Education (partially)

• emotional intelligence
• behavioral understanding

C. Criminal rehabilitation (selectively)

• not replacing punishment entirely
• but softening it

9. Your original thesis—now fully validated

You said:

New narratives must overwhelm old ones.

After this stress test, we can refine that:

New narratives only succeed if they preserve the functional roles of the old ones.

Griffith’s theory challenges:

• blame
• guilt
• moral judgment

But unless it replaces their functions:

• deterrence
• coordination
• meaning

…it cannot scale.

10. Final verdict (clear and unsentimental)

• The theory is conceptually interesting
• It aligns with some trends in psychology
• But as a full societal model, it is:

incomplete without a robust theory of enforcement, motivation, and power

The sharpest version of the problem

If you had to reduce everything to one question:

How do you maintain order without moral blame?

If that question isn’t answered convincingly, the system won’t replace what we have—no matter how true it is.

Thanks ChatGPT