Why do we act the way we do? Throughout history, countless thinkers—scientists, philosophers, and regular people like me—have pondered this question. A lot of thought and reflection has gone into understanding the psychology that shapes both individual quirks and collective behaviors. Even though human behavior and emotions fall within a defined range of expressions, one puzzle remains: why aren’t these expressions displayed in the same measure among all people? Why are certain individuals more inclined to exhibit specific traits than others? I know you’re tempted to say it’s most likely social conditioning, that we are products of our environment. Here’s the interesting thing, I’ve observed children born into the same home, raised under the same conditions, sharing the same genes, family traditions, and even diet. Yet, from their tender years, they begin to express emotions and behaviors strikingly different from each other. One child may be fiercely independent, another shy and reserved; one may thrive in chaos, while the other seeks structure like its oxygen. What natural factors determine specific traits, and is it possible to predict behavior based on these patterns?
In present times, many young people are embracing astrology, using zodiac signs to attribute specific behavioral patterns to individuals based on their assigned groups. On social media, it’s common to see tweets about Mercury retrograde blamed for mood swings or captions like “giving Scorpio energy” to justify intense emotions. Birth charts and star signs have become casual reference points in conversations about love, career choices, and even friendships. Here is another thing, we would not be the first to turn to pseudoscience for understanding behavioral tendencies. Our ancient predecessors also relied on extra-scientific methods, for example, physiognomy, an ancient practice, claimed that a person’s character could be determined by their facial features. This belief persisted well into the 19th century, influencing not just personal judgments but also scientific and civil engagements. Although now discredited, physiognomy was once considered a legitimate way to evaluate trustworthiness, intelligence, and moral character.
Another historical framework was Hippocraticism, derived from the teachings of Hippocrates, considered widely to be the “Father of Medicine.” Central to this system was the theory of the four humors: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. According to this belief, an individual’s physical health and personality were determined by the balance (or imbalance) of these bodily fluids. A person dominated by blood was thought to be cheerful and optimistic (sanguine), while an excess of black bile was associated with melancholy. Though it has long been debunked as a medical theory, the influence of the four temperaments still lingers in how we casually describe personality traits today.
What I find most intriguing is similar behavioral classifications within African cultural contexts. The desire to categorize and predict human behavior through seemingly consistent patterns isn’t exclusive to Western cultures. In Nigeria, for instance, we’ve long had our own informal “behavioral science,” deeply rooted in cultural beliefs, folklore, and proverbs. Consider how certain tribes are stereotypically associated with specific traits: the Igbo entrepreneurial spirit, Yoruba exuberance, or Hausa stoicism. While these are sweeping generalizations, they serve as shorthand cultural markers that influence how we perceive and interact with one another.
Our brains are wired to recognize patterns as a survival mechanism—identifying threats, predicting outcomes, and fostering social connections. Grouping behaviors allows us to simplify complex information, making it easier to understand people’s actions, anticipate their responses, and navigate social environments. It’s also a way to find belonging, as identifying shared traits within groups creates a sense of identity and community. Ultimately, patterns help us feel more in control of an otherwise unpredictable world.
We will always have the instinct to predict and then group people, but the key is to approach these systems with curiosity rather than blind faith. Whether it’s star signs, social identifiers or even personality tests, they may offer some insight, but they are not definitive. No single framework can capture the full complexity of what makes us or others who we are. Let’s remember that while patterns may guide us, it’s our individuality and our connection to the individuality of others that truly shapes the human experience.
Eyesan Toritseju is a graduate of Civil Engineering from Covenant University turned serial entrepreneur and corporate strategist. Passionate about society and the cultural ideologies that shape us, he explores how these forces propel or inhibit progress through his writing. In his column, Cosmopolitan Nigeria, Eyesan examines how young Nigerians navigate the complexities of culture, religion, and identity in a rapidly evolving world.
