8. Reflections on mentality

                THE  CONCEPT  OF  MENTALITY.

                The term "mentality" comes from the Latin "mind, thinking, way of thinking, mental disposition", meaning a general mental attitude, a relatively holistic set of thoughts, beliefs, thinking skills that create a picture of the world. Mentality is both a characteristic of the type of thinking (subconsciousness) and the unconscious activity of the brain. It is distinguished by a fairly stable character, it includes value orientations, life and practical attitudes of people, stable ideas about priorities, norms and patterns of behavior in different situations. An external observer sees mentality as a regulator of behavior and thinking, but a regulator that adapts under the pressure of the environment, both internal and external (social).
                From the point of view of sociobiology, mentality should be considered as the phenotype of MEMNOM, a manifestation of the entire complex of human MEMs.
                But if in biology phenotypes are properties that can be measured, then for cultural evolution, the phenotypes of MEMNOM do not have measurable properties. But they have a verbal (verbal) description in sociology. Therefore, it will not work to establish the laws of memetics in such a form as Mendel did for pea seeds, having opened 3 rules of inheritance for them. Mendel used, in crosses, statistics for phenotypes that differed in color or in seed wrinkle, i.e. values that can, if not be measured with instruments, then fix the differences with the eye. Such personality traits as kindness, intolerance to injustice, orientation of the mind and other properties of mentality cannot be somehow digitized in order to compare them.
                In this complex (MEMNOM) there are innate MEMs, largely genetic, generating instincts, creating patterns of instinctive behavior and cultural MEMs, accumulating the experience of generations and patterns of behavior that restrain the manifestation of instinctive command.
                Mentality only motivates behavior, conscious activity, ways and directions of thinking. It does not completely determine behavior, but only causes a predisposition, a tendency, to react to the environment in a certain way.
                But even this tendency and disposition can be corrected through manipulation, which we will discuss in the next chapter. The cultural component of the mentality allows the consciousness to choose and implement the appropriate behavior from the existing set.
                But sometimes behavior is defined bypassing consciousness based on emotions using instincts. This happens when cultural MEMS are unable to cope with instincts, and a change in emotional state changes behavior. This is also true of our "smaller brothers". Even an angry cat can be in trouble. The mechanisms of the influence of a change in the emotional state on behavior do not particularly concern us, since we are interested in cultural evolution, a process over long intervals of time.
                It is useful to represent the body control system in the form of a two-circuit system of subordinate regulation. The internal circuit is regulated by the genome, created by the structures of the body, hormones, a whole cascade of biochemical reactions, and the external circuit is controlled by consciousness, taking into account mentality, external conditions and feedback signals from the internal circuit. Therefore, a person's freedom of choice (free will) is not too great.
                It is not always possible to talk about what caused the corresponding act of a person - mentality, consciousness or instincts. Only the interaction of these factors matters.
                The wealth of peoples is created by human labor. It is the mentality that creates motivation and demotivation for work, for ways of doing business. In the economy, the mentality of people is as important as the power supply, as new technologies in production.
                In conditions of some freedom, people get the opportunity to realize their abilities, in accordance with their mentality, which can be useful for the whole society.


                THE  STABILITY  OF  THE  MENTALITY.

                The mentality of a person, as an external manifestation of the internal properties of a person, allows other people, on the basis of observation, to build models for predicting human behavior in different situations.
                Personality traits are not independent, they are formed, each with its own group of MEs, it is natural that some MEs participate in the formation of many properties.
                Cultural MEMS are in the subconscious. The subconscious is not a specific locus of the brain, although some localization of the subconscious in the brain can be expected, it is a repository of separate subroutines (MEMs) that must be found, retrieved and read at the request of consciousness. But for this they must be structured (placed in a certain order).
                The method of structuring (ordering) cultural MEMs is determined by the cultural code of society, as discussed in Ch. 6. It is assumed that in a particular society, the way of ordering is approximately the same, in any case, it is similar and significantly different from the way of ordering in another distant society. Therefore, we can say that the cultural code of one population differs from the cultural code of another distant population.
                The cultural code of the population is stabilized in some of its features for centuries (the comparative library catalog remains unchanged, but the literature in the library changes), which allows philosophers who are not familiar with biology to talk about the existence of a certain mental gene. After all, genes are passed from one generation to another. They are immortal.
                But cultural MEMS are not passed down automatically from generation to generation, they are formed anew in each generation. This means that there are cultural clues, traditions, moral attitudes, institutions that form similar mental properties in the new generation. Certain representations of religions may also be such clues. They are suitable for this role, since religions are stable over the centuries, which allows them to form a mentality inherited over generations.       
                To maintain the stability of the mentality, protecting it from blurring, it seems that the fact of the presence of a connection between MEMS, which arises during their ordering (structuring), helps. Note in passing that genes located on chromosomes are also linked to each other. Closely located genes have greater linkage to neighbors than to distant genes.
                The ways of structuring cultural MEMs differ for different civilizations, since in the past civilizations were torn off from each other for a long time and evolutionary processes in cultures proceeded independently in different ways.
                Sociological research shows that different religions contribute to the creation of different types of structuring information in the subconscious. The mentality of representatives of the Protestant faith is most easily adapted to the principles of creating innovative technologies and doing business, the mentality of Catholics requires more serious adaptation, and of Orthodox Christians even more. For Muslims, adaptation is almost impossible.


                MENTALITY  AND  MODERNIZATION  OF  SOCIETY.

                The mentality of a person, as an external manifestation of the internal properties of a person, allows other people, on the basis of their own observations, to build models to predict human behavior in the future or in different situations. Personality traits are not independent, they are formed, each by its own group of MEMs. Naturally, some MEMs participate in the formation of many properties. Therefore, when external circumstances change, it is difficult to say how the mental complex will manifest itself under the new conditions. Not even because it is being rebuilt, but because it is observed in other conditions. Indeed, there is no one-to-one correspondence (isomorphism) between a set of MEMS and mentality, just as there is no such correspondence between genotype and phenotype.
                Predicting the behavior of an individual in a changed environment is a difficult task. Forecasting depends on the observation and intelligence of the forecaster himself. It is difficult to make predictions about human behavior, but nevertheless, they are made, because there is no other way to look into the future, except through fortune telling on the coffee grounds.
                If we go back to biology, look at the properties of a protein, we will see that they depend not only on the order and composition of amino acids in it, which are programmed by a specific gene, but also depend on the method of compaction of the protein, which is not recorded anywhere. The chemical activity of a protein is determined by the atoms that are on the surface, and it depends on the method of compaction. Therefore, when modeling in molecular biology, you also have to guess.
                When mentality is viewed as a certain stable characteristic of a person, it is understood that it determines his predisposition to act in a certain way under normal conditions. Observations show that some mental properties have been preserved for centuries, transmitted during upbringing and education, including religious education.
                Mentality slowly changes over time with changes in the environment and the accumulation of new experience by a person, which is due to the horizontal replication of MEMs in populations.   
                The inertia of the mentality of people allows us to talk about a social track for people united in some structures.
                These structures, even with a change in external conditions, try to maintain the previous development trend. This presents a problem for the modernization of societies.             
                Retrofitting is an artificial way to rebuild life by leveraging some engineering experience instead of the usual cultural evolution.
                Attempts at modernization cause tension and stratification of mentality in societies, even if they are accompanied by some improvement in living conditions. This is easy to understand within the Darwinian approach to the evolution of a species. Changes in conditions caused by attempts at modernization make different individuals in the population ready to perceive this in different ways. Selection pressure in cultural evolution carries people less prepared for new conditions to the margins of society, where they try to survive, ceasing to be active members.
                Naturally, the modernization of society is being slowed down. Individuals who find themselves in the mainstream, feeling like the kings of the moment, lose their usual social orientations, trying to stake out their status quo forever. They have an irresistible desire to demonstrate their status, which further makes the entire society unstable.
                The greater the initial mental heterogeneity of a society, the more difficult it is for it to modernize, since the stratification in a heterogeneous society increases more strongly. The stratification of mentalities in society creates resistance to the changes that caused stratification. 
                Therefore, empires do not lend themselves to modernization, they are destroyed into components that are more homogeneous. But at the same time, the well-established economic infrastructure is being destroyed, and the modernization potential is being lost.
                This situation can be presented in the form of a new Malthusian trap, when the development potential created by the scientific and technological revolution is great, and the possibility, due to the limitations caused by the slow natural rate of change in mentality, does not allow it to be realized. In this situation, there are a billion people who have tasted the benefits of civilization and 6 billion in varying degrees removed from the pie.


                MODERNIZATION  OF  ONE  SOCIAL  UNIT.

                Let a person's mentality be characterized by a number of positive qualities that make him a worthy contender for a leading position in society: the president of the country, the prime minister, the boss among art workers or scientists.
                After the appointment or selection to the appropriate position, the behavior of the chosen one is determined by the result of the interaction of his mentality with the surrounding mental environment of society. Voters observed him in one social environment, and he ended up in another, specific one. How will he behave here?
                If the pressure of the social environment is great, and this is almost always the case in large structures, then the chosen one has 2 ways - "Resign himself to the blows of fate", adapt to the conditions, or leave this dragging power web in accordance with his mentality.
                The first way, translated from Shakespeare's language, means mental adaptation to those social conditions that exist in a given environment, while obtaining certain preferences from its purpose.
                In any of the two elections, the problem of improving the social climate of the cell to which the person was elected (appointed) will not be solved.
                It will not be because the energy of one person, as a rule, is not enough to overcome the inertia prevailing in the cell. To change the situation for the better, either the introduction of more energy into the cell is required than one person possesses or the modernization of the cell structure is required, which is beyond the power of one person in a large structure. When trying to modernize the conditions in the structure, he will feel the pressure pushing him out of the structure.
                When in a leading chair a “good” person does not live up to the expectations of voters, begins to act like all his predecessors, this means that his mentality is adapting in a certain direction under the influence of environmental pressure. The system turns out to be stronger than man. This is always the case in biology. It is the subject that adapts to the environment under the influence of selection.
                For changes to take place, it is necessary to create an environment for the selected manager that would not allow trading the trust, did not allow adaptation, and forced to work on changing the situation, feeling support from below.
                If we see abuse, it means, first of all, that the management system is not properly built. Most people believe that it is enough to remove a bad leader in one way or another and appoint a good one. This would seem to solve the problem. But this is not the case in most cases. The person seemed good in a different social environment.
                Sometimes a person (a passionary according to Gumilev) can change some circumstances, when he turns out to be stronger than them, when the system has weakened (its stability has decreased) under the influence of various factors.
                Napoleon was able to prove himself, his abilities precisely in France at the beginning of the 19th century, but only because the country found itself at a point of bifurcation (instability) as a result of the French Revolution. Likewise Lenin in 1917, Yeltsin in 1991.
                Napoleon's activities were aimed at uniting the disparate norms and rules that existed in Europe. He failed to unite Europe, turning it into an empire, but Napoleon created a civil code (1804), which marked the beginning of the era of codification of law in Europe and became the foundation of the Romanesque civil legal tradition. “My true glory is not that I won forty battles; the defeat at Waterloo will eclipse my victories in the memory of descendants ... But what will not be forgotten and will live forever is my Civil Code, "Napoleon said."
                Can a person be blamed for not being Napoleon? Human strengths are limited, and potential Napoleons, generally speaking, due to their passionarity, often lead the situation to a dead end.
                But the usual control from below (from the people) over the chosen ones can change the vector of pressure on a person in a leading cell in favor of the governed. After all, it is the selection pressure that is the driving force in the evolutionary process. Democratic procedures (control from below) increase the stability of the system and do not allow it to turn into a dictatorship.
                It must be understood that one person cannot destroy the state, just as he cannot save it from collapse alone. The system is stronger than humans in the vast majority of cases.


                MENTALITY,  ECONOMICS, POLITICS.

               Our Russian rulers, aristocratic oligarchs, heads of law enforcement agencies, in the aggregate the elite (people who have the ability to influence), using Western templates of economic development, are trying to "start" our economy. And it won't start. Why? What is the reason? The reason is the inconsistency of the Russian mentality with the Western standards of organizing business and life.
                Yes, the economy can be started by breaking everything to the ground, replacing Russians with Japanese, Germans, Europeans, inviting foreign managers. But then there will be no Russia, only the space where Russia was will remain. But we want to be. And there are many of us.
                The problem should be posed differently. How can Russians, including the elite with a very heterogeneous mentality, be motivated for effective work? How to create an attractive environment for business in Russia? How can we ensure that the elites feel part of the country, educate their children here, and invest in the Russian economy? How to find our Russian way of developing a multinational state without breaking the mentality over the knee.
                Only effective labor is a reliable source of the nation's wealth. Oil dollars could help us in this process, but we missed the chance, ate them up and stole them. This is what the elite should think about. There are no standard solutions for any people.
                Due to the specific mentality of its citizens, Japanese capitalism differs in some important details from American and German ones. But with all the differences, we get a competitive economy in all 3 cases.
                In ontogeny, a certain property is usually formed by many genes, and deficiencies in one can be compensated for by others, due to the fact that the system is covered by feedback. So, in the end, the result is equifinal. (In the same way, but achieved in a slightly different way)            
                It is illogical, given such results, that our economy is increasingly lagging behind developed countries, with such a wealth of resource base, to consider our leaders effective and vote for them. But ordinary people look at everything from the point of view of their mentality - "if only there was no big war, it has been worse." They go and vote. Let the old leaders rule, otherwise the “new” ones will start stealing even more. And, besides, there is no one around who could.
                Many citizens cannot understand that it is not in vain that the representatives of the elite trampled the clearing around them and inspire the people that the army is our best and only friend.
                Meanwhile, the country is not developing, the economy is in stagnation, there are more and more billionaires and beggars, which in no way can indicate the effectiveness of the elites, but only the stratification of society. But under poor leadership, elites must be the first to suffer losses. But we have the same income tax for the poor and billionaires at 13%. To increase it, make it progressive and ensure that it is paid in full by top managers, oligarchs and the entire elite would mean not only replenishing the state treasury, but also forcing people who have become rich in poverty or stupidity to take material responsibility for the fact that we are so bad we live. Elites do not want to share, but a wise state should create such conditions for them for such a desire to arise.
                We have to admit that the elite, busy with the problem of ensuring the safety of their own privatized resources, are not worried about the question of why China was able to start rapid modernization, while Russia cannot, although it seems to have changed the management system. No answer, no conclusions. The new system turned out to be uglier than the old one.
                As the world experience has shown, the economy cannot develop without an effective owner. It does not need some kind of owner (this has recently been in the face of the state and now it again dominates the economy), it needs an “Effective” owner. An effective owner is an owner with a special mentality. And the oligarchs are people with the mentality of speculators, unable to create something, but capable of stealing and squeezing.
                The state, having taken property in its hands and managing it manually, contributes to its plundering with the help of its own officials, instead of creating clear and effective rules of the game. Why are we manually operated? Because it’s more convenient to plunder resources. All these top managers are already in communism and not with one, but with both feet.
                The oligarchs and officials have gone offshore and now a small fraction of this money is flowing in a dull stream into the Russian economy under the guise of foreign investment. And someone is looking for a fifth column that gets in the way. And the real fifth column was the elite, which managed to approve such conditions in Russia.
                And the people, accustomed to obedience, for 450 years of autocracy and 70 years of communist rule, consider elections to be a ritual on which nothing depends. He is not ready to fight for democratic reforms, he considers them unnecessary.
                Political scientists do not have their own platforms and consensus. From philosophical platforms, everyone defends their small economy, and only from the position of sociobiology are the defects of the system visible.
                Everyone understands that revolutions are bad, they bring suffering to everyone. But they see the prevention of revolutions only in building up the army and navy. So far, we agree on one thing: "If not Putin, then who?" Some people think even more abruptly: "Dear Joseph Vissarionovich, get up from the grave, help."
                This is the mentality of the Russian people who have gone through the communist training. Until it changes at least in a certain, active part of the people, positive structural reforms should not be expected.