Humans. We are rather volatile, no? Everyone hears of those men who overreact and beat their wives/girlfriends/children, that man who got fed up chasing a woman and raped her, that person who killed their rival, that person whose reasoning facilities didn't fit with the most basic and lenient of morals and ethics.
Why doesn't every human partake in such actions? I would argue that, through years of both social and natural evolution, we Humans have developed a way to keep our most naturalistic impulses in check. It's evident every day. Someone gets really mad at their computer and wants nothing more than to punch it, but they stay their hand. A man and his girlfriend are arguing, but both keep their physical aggressions in check. You see someone's food left unattended on their desk at the library or during class, but instead of eating it before they get back, you allow them their meal.
Well then. My answer leads to another question. Why do these people alone overreact? One could answer that their defenses weren't strong enough. Their built in safeguards against unnecessary violence failed them. That man beat his wife not because everyone can do it but doesn't, he beat his wife because he himself went out of control. The rest of us men don't even allow that possibility enter our minds. We are nothing like them.
However, I beg to differ. Everyone human has that possibility. We all have that chance of "going crazy," of losing our natural inhibitions. Of beating our child within an inch of his life, of murdering our wife because she nagged us one too many times, of putting that knife into the ear of a stranger because he looked at our food the wrong way. And as evidence, I present a select few experiments, reports, and historical events.
The Millgram Experiment-- I know I already made a thread on this, but I feel the need to bring it up again in this thread. This experiment, first held by Stanley Millgram in the 60's or 70's (I can't remember which), showed that humans are completely capable of doing whatever another asks of them as long as that other person is in a perceived higher position of authority.
In this specific experiment, Millgram had participants "shock" others who answered questions wrong with increasingly higher voltages. The people who answered the questions were actors, but the participants did not know this fact. Over 67% of the participants went the entire range of voltage. In the participant's mind, this had killed the actor. They did this because Millgram merely said "Please continue" whenever they experienced reluctance to continue. Hell, some even expressed a feeling a glee as they were moving up the scale of shocks.
Blue Eyes/Green Eyes Experiment--
She began the lesson with a claim. The blue eyed children were better than the blue eyed children in the class. They could leave early for lunch, they could get seconds at lunch, five extra minutes of recess, and exclusive use of the new jungle gym. The brown eyed children could not drink from the same water fountain as the blue eyed children. The blue eyed children were praised as hard workers and intelligent students, but the brown eyed children were disparaged as idiots and lower children. The brown eyed children even had to wear ribbons around their necks.
It wasn't well accepted at first. The children expressed dismay, not understanding why the brown eyed children weren't as good as the blue eyed children. Elliott bullshit a claim that the melanin in the eyes were the difference, and her children believed her. The blue eyed children were bossy and otherwise mean to their classmates. Their quiz scores improved and they completed reading tasks that were considered well above their means. The brown eyes became subservient and reserved, with lower test scores and difficulty at performing simple math or reading tasks that they had ease with just the day before.
That very next day, Elliott reversed the rules. She claimed the brown eyes were really better, and that the collars they wore should be given to the blue eyed children. The results were essentially the same.
This doesn't just show that children are easily taught hatred. It shows the most basic effects on a human psyche of a perceived dominance. Without the "no one is better than you" conditioning we receive through High School and the real world, the children were essentially outputs of pure human instincts. They were given a superior, or the role of the superior, and reacted as we would expect an Alpha Male in a pack of animals to respond.
The entire Frontline piece on this experiment.
Self-Gratification, or the Marshmallow Experiment-- The Marshmallow Experiment was an experiment given to a set of 4-year olds. They were given a marshmallow and told that if they could wait 20 minutes before eating it they would receive another one. Some could wait, but others could not. The testers repeated this test for the children throughout their adolescence, and found that the children who could wait were overall better adjusted to life as a whole. Their teachers found them more dependable, and they scored an average of 210 points higher on the SAT.
This shows the inherent greed present in people. Pretty much all I got on this one.
The Stanford Prison Experiment-- This is, perhaps, the most hard hitting and telling experiment of them all.
A group of 24 students were randomly given the role of prisoner or guard in a make believe prison. The lead scientist, Philip Zimbardo, placed them in the basement of the Stanford Psychology Department and let them do what they would.
Within hours, the guards developed a system of having the prisoners "count off," to impress in them the idea that their new identity was that of a number. That they were nothing more than, say, Prisoner 416. Any mistakes in the "count off" were punished with extreme exercise.
As the experiment went on, the guards got increasingly sadistic. They eventually wouldn't allow the prisoners to empty their sanitation bucket, and refused some the ability to urinate or defecate. They took away the mattresses of others and forced them to sleep on the concrete. They made others languish with no clothes on, and still some others they forced to simulate homosexual acts as a form of sexual degradation. They also turned the prisoners against each other, forcing one into "solitary confinement" in a closet when he expressed dismay at the treatment of his fellow prisoners. To free him, the prisoners had to give up their blankets. One refused.
Even Zimbardo allowed himself to be engrossed with the experiment, becoming a Prison Warden of sorts. The experiment was only haulted when his girlfriend, and future wife, confronted him about the extreme conditions present in the "prison." Zimbardo realized the horrors that were occurring, and stopped the experiment at day 6 of 14.
Zimbardo argues the extreme roles were due to the internalization of the roles given. As evidence, Zimbardo gives the event provided:
These guards had lost the basic society moral check that oversees how we treat our fellow man. I couldn't walk up to a person in the library and say "strip down. Oh, and you can't use the bathroom anymore." Also, the prisoners lost the idea of their own identity. They became nothing more than a thing, a lower being.
--------
As you can see, our life as it is only exists with our present morals and mental safeties in place. The minute this safeguards are removed are altered, atrocities against man can and will take place.
So. Am I right? Are all humans just one hurdle away from a murder? A rape? A stunningly horrific crime against humanity? Are these events really an example of our animalistic tendencies taking the forefront? Or am I just taking these experiments totally out of context? Stake your claim.
Why doesn't every human partake in such actions? I would argue that, through years of both social and natural evolution, we Humans have developed a way to keep our most naturalistic impulses in check. It's evident every day. Someone gets really mad at their computer and wants nothing more than to punch it, but they stay their hand. A man and his girlfriend are arguing, but both keep their physical aggressions in check. You see someone's food left unattended on their desk at the library or during class, but instead of eating it before they get back, you allow them their meal.
Well then. My answer leads to another question. Why do these people alone overreact? One could answer that their defenses weren't strong enough. Their built in safeguards against unnecessary violence failed them. That man beat his wife not because everyone can do it but doesn't, he beat his wife because he himself went out of control. The rest of us men don't even allow that possibility enter our minds. We are nothing like them.
However, I beg to differ. Everyone human has that possibility. We all have that chance of "going crazy," of losing our natural inhibitions. Of beating our child within an inch of his life, of murdering our wife because she nagged us one too many times, of putting that knife into the ear of a stranger because he looked at our food the wrong way. And as evidence, I present a select few experiments, reports, and historical events.
The Millgram Experiment-- I know I already made a thread on this, but I feel the need to bring it up again in this thread. This experiment, first held by Stanley Millgram in the 60's or 70's (I can't remember which), showed that humans are completely capable of doing whatever another asks of them as long as that other person is in a perceived higher position of authority.
In this specific experiment, Millgram had participants "shock" others who answered questions wrong with increasingly higher voltages. The people who answered the questions were actors, but the participants did not know this fact. Over 67% of the participants went the entire range of voltage. In the participant's mind, this had killed the actor. They did this because Millgram merely said "Please continue" whenever they experienced reluctance to continue. Hell, some even expressed a feeling a glee as they were moving up the scale of shocks.
Blue Eyes/Green Eyes Experiment--
wikipedia.org said:
She began the lesson with a claim. The blue eyed children were better than the blue eyed children in the class. They could leave early for lunch, they could get seconds at lunch, five extra minutes of recess, and exclusive use of the new jungle gym. The brown eyed children could not drink from the same water fountain as the blue eyed children. The blue eyed children were praised as hard workers and intelligent students, but the brown eyed children were disparaged as idiots and lower children. The brown eyed children even had to wear ribbons around their necks.
It wasn't well accepted at first. The children expressed dismay, not understanding why the brown eyed children weren't as good as the blue eyed children. Elliott bullshit a claim that the melanin in the eyes were the difference, and her children believed her. The blue eyed children were bossy and otherwise mean to their classmates. Their quiz scores improved and they completed reading tasks that were considered well above their means. The brown eyes became subservient and reserved, with lower test scores and difficulty at performing simple math or reading tasks that they had ease with just the day before.
That very next day, Elliott reversed the rules. She claimed the brown eyes were really better, and that the collars they wore should be given to the blue eyed children. The results were essentially the same.
This doesn't just show that children are easily taught hatred. It shows the most basic effects on a human psyche of a perceived dominance. Without the "no one is better than you" conditioning we receive through High School and the real world, the children were essentially outputs of pure human instincts. They were given a superior, or the role of the superior, and reacted as we would expect an Alpha Male in a pack of animals to respond.
The entire Frontline piece on this experiment.
Self-Gratification, or the Marshmallow Experiment-- The Marshmallow Experiment was an experiment given to a set of 4-year olds. They were given a marshmallow and told that if they could wait 20 minutes before eating it they would receive another one. Some could wait, but others could not. The testers repeated this test for the children throughout their adolescence, and found that the children who could wait were overall better adjusted to life as a whole. Their teachers found them more dependable, and they scored an average of 210 points higher on the SAT.
This shows the inherent greed present in people. Pretty much all I got on this one.
The Stanford Prison Experiment-- This is, perhaps, the most hard hitting and telling experiment of them all.
A group of 24 students were randomly given the role of prisoner or guard in a make believe prison. The lead scientist, Philip Zimbardo, placed them in the basement of the Stanford Psychology Department and let them do what they would.
Within hours, the guards developed a system of having the prisoners "count off," to impress in them the idea that their new identity was that of a number. That they were nothing more than, say, Prisoner 416. Any mistakes in the "count off" were punished with extreme exercise.
As the experiment went on, the guards got increasingly sadistic. They eventually wouldn't allow the prisoners to empty their sanitation bucket, and refused some the ability to urinate or defecate. They took away the mattresses of others and forced them to sleep on the concrete. They made others languish with no clothes on, and still some others they forced to simulate homosexual acts as a form of sexual degradation. They also turned the prisoners against each other, forcing one into "solitary confinement" in a closet when he expressed dismay at the treatment of his fellow prisoners. To free him, the prisoners had to give up their blankets. One refused.
Even Zimbardo allowed himself to be engrossed with the experiment, becoming a Prison Warden of sorts. The experiment was only haulted when his girlfriend, and future wife, confronted him about the extreme conditions present in the "prison." Zimbardo realized the horrors that were occurring, and stopped the experiment at day 6 of 14.
Zimbardo argues the extreme roles were due to the internalization of the roles given. As evidence, Zimbardo gives the event provided:
wikipedia.org said:
These guards had lost the basic society moral check that oversees how we treat our fellow man. I couldn't walk up to a person in the library and say "strip down. Oh, and you can't use the bathroom anymore." Also, the prisoners lost the idea of their own identity. They became nothing more than a thing, a lower being.
--------
As you can see, our life as it is only exists with our present morals and mental safeties in place. The minute this safeguards are removed are altered, atrocities against man can and will take place.
So. Am I right? Are all humans just one hurdle away from a murder? A rape? A stunningly horrific crime against humanity? Are these events really an example of our animalistic tendencies taking the forefront? Or am I just taking these experiments totally out of context? Stake your claim.