An article about the Wendigo psychosis, a disorder that turns people into cannibals.
http://io9.com/5946814/wendigo-psychosis-the-probably-fake-disease-that-turns-people-into-cannibals
0 Comments
Information about reversal theory, a theory on personality and motivation.
http://www.reversaltheory.net/files/RT_Apter/player.html http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/06/the-dunning-kruger-effect-why-the-incompetent-dont-know-theyre-incompetent.php
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/fashion/the-challenge-of-making-friends-as-an-adult.html?_r=2
http://www.thebalancedwife.com/3-conditions-for-friendship Here is a link to a new research study on the Milgram Experiment:
http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/technology/article/1591776/review-1961-yale-experiments-leads-researchers-revise-motive Neither you Simon, nor the fifty thousand
Nor the Romans, nor the Jews Nor Judas, nor the twelve, nor the priests, nor the scribes Nor doomed Jerusalem itself Understand what power is -"Poor Jerusalem", Jesus Christ Superstar Many years ago at University I had a discussion with a classmate on the origins of war. His opinion was that war came out of greed. Now, ten years later, I have come to the conclusion that he was partially right. Greed may not be the only factor, as there may also be political, ideological and religious reasons. However, at a more abstract level, all these reasons relate to power. Power fascinates us. We both admire and envy the powerful. We worship powerful gods, who we hope will help and save us. We are drawn to power and dream of attaining it. Just by being more powerful, the winning team always attracts more supporters. In this essay I will argue that power is a major motive in most social interactions. The effect of power on the individual may be both negative and positive. What is Power? The exercise of power is present in most social interactions. One form of social interaction that is primarily based upon power is politics. Politics, the art of influencing people in an organized political community, has been defined by Pfifner and Sherwood (1960) as the pursuit, acquisition and exercise of political power. Without political power, there can be no politics. Political power, and all forms of social power for that matter, is defined as the ability to influence others into a desired direction by the use of sources of power and power tactics. In that sense, power is essential in power games, and such strategic and tactical situations are present in all social settings. Power is relational and acts reciprocally. All parties in a relationship have some power, although it may differ in relative strength and stability. In relationships where the parties have equal power, there is a balance of power in which individual power is constrained. Power exchanges can be bilateral, such as through negotiation and collaboration, including both the target of influence and the influencer. They can also be unilateral, excluding the participation of the target, such as in some doctor-patient relations. Power is most visible in unilateral relationships. Power can be expressed upwards or downwards. Upward power is when subordinates influence the decisions of leaders whereas as downward power is when leaders influence the decisions of subordinates. Bjorn Kraus, inspired by Max Weber, has divided power into instructive and destructive power. Instructive power is the ability to change the thoughts and actions of another being. Destructive power, on the other hand is the ability to restrict the thoughts and actions of others, such as through harming of others. Like Shiva, the Hindu supreme god, the powerful have the power to both transform and to destroy. Power can therefore be both restraining and enabling, as it can restrict but also influence you in a direction desirable to yourself. An example of enabling power can be to force a child to go to school, even though he does not want to. Power exercised on a child may have long term positive consequences, although not always. Power does not only act through strong individuals but also collectively through groups, and such a synergy of power can exert a major influence on individuals. Larger groups may have greater potential power than smaller groups or individuals, but it also depends on what sources of power these utilize. In addition, larger groups also have a tendency of controversies and disputes of power that unless controlled with acceptable power means and consent may get out of hand and lead to split. Power Sources and Tactics French and Raven (1965) have identified six bases of power. These are coercive power - the ability to use force; reward power - the ability to control through rewards and punishers; legitimate power – power through authority or a socially accepted position or title; referent power – power through interpersonal skills and charisma; informational power – the ability to utilize and use information; and expert power – the ability to convince others to trust you because they perceive that you possess superior skills or abilities. To French and Raven, power is relative; it depends on the target’s recognition of the power source that the influencer is using. If the power is not accepted by the target, the influence can have unintended outcomes. Toffler later simplified the bases of power, claiming that three basic ones are violence, wealth and knowledge. Power tactics may involve physical coercion, psychological manipulation, persuasion or other types of influence. Coercive tactics are more forceful, direct and rely on concrete outcomes, whereas softer tactics are indirect and interpersonal. People tend to change from soft to hard tactics when they face resistance. Influence may also be rational or non-rational. Rational tactics use reasoning, logic and sound judgment whereas non-rational tactics is based on emotion and misinformation. As humans are partly rational and partly irrational, both tactics can be considered effective. Interestingly enough, a study by Falbo and Peplau (1980) suggests that in intimate relationships, women tend to use unilateral and indirect tactics whereas men resort to bilateral and direct tactics. Somewhat paradoxically, the men in the study also perceived themselves as having more power in the relationship than the women did. It is therefore possible that those who perceive themselves as less powerful are more likely to use unilateral and indirect tactics, and this may be related to self esteem. The Will to Power Many philosophers and psychologists have based their understanding of human motivation on power. Of these, Nietzsche may have been the most influential thinker. Nietzsche believed that the will to power, through ambition and achievement, was the main driving force in humans. To him humans strive to control their environment and to dominate others. Power can originate from many sources; science, violence, religion, beauty - but they all serve the same purpose; the will to power. Some readers of Nietzsche have interpreted the will to power as the striving for self-realization and perfection and power may indeed be the reason. The will to power can also be viewed as constant and recurrent will of becoming what one is able to. The concept is closely related to Nietzsche’s notion of eternal recurrence; because time and space in is infinite but bodies are finite, everything that occurs in the Universe will be repeated, over and over again. In this view the will to power is like a will of constant becoming but it can also be seen as a will to live and the love of life. Due to the eternal recurrence, one needs to learn to love and accept his fate of endless rebirth because there is no choice. He needs to learn to love change, because that is what life is about. From that perspective, Nietzsche views the events in the Universe as cyclical, much as we tend to view powerful empires and the comings and goings of powerful leaders. All empires may one day collapse and all leaders will one day die or lose their power. But they will also one day return. It is similar to what a wise old man tells Nately in the book Catch-22. Italy is a poor and weak country, and that is what makes it so strong, because all great empires will eventually fall. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. The one you step on when you are on your way up are the ones that will step on you on your way down. The frog, a small and weak animal, has existed for 500 million years. Will the powerful United States exist that long? Nietzsche believed that everything in the Universe strives to become master over all space, to extend its power and to attack everything that resists. When you encounter bodies with similar intentions you may ally with them and conspire together for power. Another interpretation of Nietzsche’s concept of the will to power is that the Universe is a system of forces that may create an equilibrium or balance of power. However, because everything is becoming, changing, conspiring, strengthening and weakening the system is dynamic and never constant. Masters and Slaves Nietzsche used the will to power to explain why the world is divided into masters and slaves, wolves and sheep. He distinguished between slave morality and master morality. Slave morality is values like kindness, humility and sympathy, whereas master morality focuses on traditionally masculine values, such as pride and strength. Master morality is consequential, and focuses on good or bad consequences. For example, using forced labor to build the Chinese wall created tremendous suffering for those building it but it has created a monument that can be enjoyed by generations. People suffered for it but the outcome may have been good. Slave morality is based on intentions. An action is bad if you intend to make someone suffer and good if you intend to intend to help someone. To Nietzsche, morality forms part of the constant struggle of the will to power. Master morality is the morality of those in power, whereas slave morality is the morality of those with less power. Master morality is based on what the individual thinks is best for himself whereas slave morality is how the weak respond to the morality of their masters. Slave morality is a kind of reaction to oppression, in that it attempts to make masters seem evil. Weak people control others by guilt and shame, just like your mother. The strong people dominate by their own physical or legitimate power. One can claim that the emergence of slave morality comes from the hating of the stronger. It is like the passive aggressiveness exhibited of those that have low status but know that they cannot openly challenge the leader. Nietzsche thinks that one does not hate someone you hold of low esteem, you only hate those that you think are equal or better than you. Nietzsche thinks that the gate to heaven should have the inscription “I too was created by eternal hate” because hate, stemming from the will to power is what motivates belief. The redeemed in heaven will feel greater because of the damned in hell. To Nietzsche, Christianity and Democracy weakened people by slave morality. The strong will always be fewer in number than the weak and the weak will corrupt the strong by turning them into slaves as well. To only do what is good for the community but not individuals and make everyone equal was to Nietzsche to make everyone equally powerless and pessimistic about life. The law of Jante, the "evil eye" or the seemingly harmless mocking going on in circle of friends may be ways for the many to limit the power of the few, to bring them down to earth so that they do not become too arrogant of power. You should not think you are better than us, we are all equal. Nietzsche’s Followers It was in this sense that Nietzsche later served as inspiration to some fascist ideologies. It seems that Nietzsche saw the will to power both as self-improvement but also to justify aristocratic domination. Nietzsche’s Ubermensch concept relate to this as well. Because of the constant struggle of the will to power, man will constantly improve and transcend his values. The one that comes after me will be stronger than me. Nietzsche was most likely influenced by the sentiments of his time, particularly the Hegelian notion that the interaction of opposites generates new opposites in a dialectical fashion. Chalybäis characterized Hegel´s dialectic by the triad of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. A thesis, or idea, gives rise to an anti-thesis, or opposition to the idea. Later, the tension between the thesis and anti-thesis is resolved through a synthesis. The same dialectic idea can be seen in Marx. A later Marxist writer, Gramsci, suggested contrary to Nietzsche that it was not the lower classes that manipulated the upper classes. Instead it was the elite who manipulated the lower classes to consent to the social, economic and political status quo due to ideology and cultural hegemony or dominance. The power of capitalism and the nation state, primarily social constructs are legitimized by brainwashing people through propaganda in different media. Another philosopher that has been influenced by Marx and Nietzsche is Foucault. Foucault elaborated on the idea expressed in the old proverb: “scientia est potentia”; "knowledge is power". To Foucault, new paradigms or discourses throughout history are ways for the authorities to control their subjects. Foucault formed part of the anti-psychiatric movement of the 1960s, which viewed psychiatry as repressive and controlling. The famous book “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest,” seems heavily influenced by the anti-psychiatric movement. It is true that there may be knowledge that is closer to the truth or more practical, but the motivation for its attainment may stem from a need to control; others, yourself or your environment. Monkey Business – the Sociobiological Origins of Power Even Darwin seems to have been inspired by the 19th century zeitgeist of the world as conflict and opposition. Natural selection implies a struggle between all living things for survival. In addition, recent research suggests that the will to power may have an adaptive function. The pleasure of power may be biological, as it has a proven effect on your well-being. Humans hunger for power because of the pleasure it gives. It may also explain the seemingly inexplicable; why some can take pleasure in cruelty. By seeing others suffer, some may enjoy the power they are exercising. McGuire’s, Raleigh’s and Troisi’s studies on vervet monkeys in the 1990s have shown that there is a relationship between mood and status. Vervet monkey alpha males had levels of serotonin which were twice as high as lower ranking males. When males lost their status, the serotonin levels fell dramatically. Lower status and lower serotonin levels are associated with depressive and aggressive behavior. Lower serotonin levels, therefore, are indirectly signals of change, either of the environment or of social status. That is why people with low status may start revolutions and riots or dream of moving to the Promised Land. They have nothing to lose. The Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis (MIH) (also called the Social Brain Hypothesis) proposes that primate intelligence evolved through the complexities of social life. Primate social relationships are often described in the same way. Capuchine monkeys, for example, can trick senior members of their group during into fleeing by crying predator in order to get more food for themselves. Gorillas may mate in secret to avoid being beaten by the alpha male, the highest ranking ape. Monkeys can hide food for others or pretend that the food is not tasty so that others will not steal it. The more deceptive a species of apes, the larger the brain size relative to body size. Apes can also form alliances and these coalitions are sometimes very fluid. The alliances are formed through mutual grooming and social bonding and can be used to achieve and maintain dominance status. Nepotism, or favoritism of relatives, is common. The great apes live in societies with dominance hierarchies and they have plenty of time on their hands for the political struggle. Sapolsky’s research on baboons in Serengeti shows that the majority of stress in primates comes from other primates, and it is the low ranking individuals that are most susceptible to stress. In the rhesus macaques, the alpha males rule the group like dictators, and have the safest sleeping places, the best food and access to sex with females. They rule through threats, violence and alliances. The lowest ranking individuals, the omegas, are forced to live at the outskirts of the group, to wait for the others to eat first and can only have sex when the alpha male is not watching. When middle ranking males are under attack from higher ranking males they may scapegoat the omega males in order to avoid punishment. Female macaques participate differently than the males in the power struggle. They have a lot of sex with the alpha male to ensure that he will protect their babies from other monkeys, but they also have sex with other monkeys without his knowledge. They do so in case he dies or loses his power. It is important to note that it is not always the largest and strongest ape that becomes the alpha male. In chimpanzees, the primatologist Frans de Waal has noticed that it is an animal´s ability to form social connections and alliances that is a better predictor for leadership. Similar observations may be made in today´s society, in which many studies suggest that those who that are seen as the most considerate and social, are more likely to hold a high position in society. People tend to give authority to those they genuinely likely. This is the survival of the nicest, the notion that, opposite to common belief, that nice guys finish first. However, as we later shall see, once people rise to power, they may stop being nice. Sometimes a power struggle in the group can result in a revolution, in which all members of the ruling family are being attacked by subordinate apes. The result of such revolutions is usually drastic changes in the power structure of the group. When a group of macaques confront another group of macaques, however, the loyalty to the group is intensified and monkey warfare begins. Warfare has been observed in monkeys since the 1970s, when Wrangham and Goodall watched a group of chimpanzees being split into two factions. One group killed all the male chimpanzees in the other group and some of the women. In the wild, it is not uncommon that chimpanzees conduct “lethal raids”. They walk stealthily, single file, into the territory of another group of chimpanzees and attack a single chimpanzee, preferably a male. Chimpanzees are believed to do this to gain access to food in the other territory. Sometimes they can persuade females of the other group to join them. Here is a video clip from a BBC documentary showing a chimpanzee raid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7XuXi3mqYM As all species of apes have a strictly hierarchical group structure and constant power struggles, this may also be a natural tendency in humans. Total equality, although ideal, may therefore not be realistic. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others, as it is written in the 7th commandment of Animalism in George Orwell’s book Animal farm. In addition, we may naturally not want to be equal but to increase our personal status. We can also see that other species of monkeys gain in political power through aggressive and bullying behavior but also through the use of “politics”, such as by using deception and creating alliances. The goal of the monkey struggle is naturally the benefits of power; sex, food, and better sleeping places. Humans are often fighting for power and money because of the similar reasons; sex, better food, protection of children, better housing and material welfare. Power on Your Mind Nietzsche also greatly inspired psycho-dynamic thought, which moved the battle for power to within the human psyche. For example, Adler’s individual psychology is based on the idea of the inferiority complex. When children are born, they feel naturally inferior, helpless and dependent. This feeling can be intensified when comparing oneself to siblings. A complex for a weakness of some kind can also lead to the will to compensate through control. Children’s natural inferiority complex may be the reason why children’s literature is often about individuals with exceptional powers; Pippi Longstockings, Superman and Harry Potter. Perhaps a power complex is also the reason why all children at times attempt to disobey and defy their parents. Those who develop a strong inferiority complex in childhood may develop an extreme lust for power. It may for example be noted that Stalin was violently abused by his father, which may have contributed to an extreme lust for power and revenge. Stalin also had a withered arm like Kaiser Wilhelm II; the latter a major contributor to deterioration in Germany’s international relations before World War 1. Winston Churchill suffered from a speech impediment since childhood and the young Margaret Thatcher was thought to have a shrill pitch of voice before a voice coach helped her overcome it. Thatcher may also have suffered from the inferiority complex of being a woman in a man’s world. A certain personality type, the Macchiavellian personality, is extremely attracted to power. Macchiavellian intelligence is the ability to be unemotional and detach oneself from morality and deceive and manipulate others. The trait relates to other anti-social traits such as psychopathy and narcissism and correlates to other anti-social behavior, such as racism, violence and bullying. A macchiavellian personality is concerned with manipulation and exploitation of others, has a cynical disregard for morality and is focused on self-interest and deception. Research on this personality suggests that they are highly motivated to pursue their motives such as sex and achievements and winning and give high priority to money, power and competition and relatively low priority to community building, love and family. Measures suggest that women are slightly less macchiavellian than men. Research on macchiavellian behavior also suggests that such individuals for some reason have less developed empathy and emotion recognition. These people do not simply wish to achieve, but wish to achieve at the expense of others. It also suggests that the people who are following expectations of standard economic game theory models in trust games score high on this behavior. If people high in macchiavellianism are good at manipulating people, therefore, it may not be because of a sophisticated understanding of human psychology, but rather a simplified one, and maybe foremost because macchiavellians are motivated to manipulate and differ from other people and people do not expect their behavior. You can test your own level of macchiavellianism on a simplified test here: http://personality-testing.info/tests/MACH-IV.php Does Power Corrupt? Although power may attract the wrong people, it can also change you. According to the British historian Lord Acton power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The classic study demonstrating this was the Stanford Prison Experiment of 1971, in which college students were randomly assigned to act as either prisoners or guards in a mock prison. The study had to be stopped after the prison guards started abusing their power over the prisoners. Psychological research suggests that the more power an individual has, the less he is able to take the perspective of others and more likely to rely on stereotypes and generalizations when making decisions. In a study by This relates to the empathy gap which states that human understanding is state dependent. For example, when one is angry, it is difficult to imagine how it is to be happy. In the same vein, it is difficult for those in power to understand what it is like to have less power. Like the famous quote “Why don’t they eat cake?” attributed to the wife of Louis XIV, when told that the poor had no bread to eat. Other studies have shown that people in power spend less time making eye contact when a person without power it talking. However, a study by Handgraaf et al. (2008) has suggested that social responsibility may be evoked more if the power relationship is unilateral. In ultimatum games, participants gave higher offers to the recipient if he was completely powerless, compared to if he had some power. Many multi-player ultimatum games have a counter-intuitive tendency to reward the less powerful compared to the more powerful. In the famous pirate ultimatum game, for instance, the rational outcome is that the player who is second in power will receive less than the players with less power. This may be because the person who is second in power is the main threat to the ruler, and the latter may therefore ally with someone less powerful and thus more easily manipulated. It is possible that power also leads to a culture of entitlement, which can have a negative effect on individual morality. For example, experimental and field experiments suggest that upper-class individuals are more likely to behave more unethically, such as stealing, lying and cheating, than lower-class individuals. (Piff, Cartato, Cote, Mendoza-Denton, & Keltner, 2012) Perhaps the reason for this is that such individuals are more able to rationalize it or believe that they can get away with an unethical act. The culture of entitlement may also lead to hypocrisy. In a study by Galinsky in 2009 participants were primed to experience either power or powerlessness. Those who had been primed to experience power were more likely to consider cheating as unethical compared to those who experienced powerlessness. Paradoxically, the power group was more likely to cheat on a subsequent dice throwing task than the powerlessness group. In variation of this study, those experiencing power were rated an act as more immoral if it was done by someone else and not themselves. The findings were reverse for those experiencing powerlessness. (Lammers & Galinsky, 2010) Some research suggests that power does not necessarily make one bad, instead it strengthens your individual morality. For example, Lammers and Galinsky (2010) found that a third of the participants in high power states were more likely to be more harsh on themselves and less harsh on others. Lammers and Galinsky has termed this phenomenon "hypercrisy" and speculate that it can have something to do with that such powerful individuals do not experience entitlement or believe that they deserve their power. It is also likely that our morality identity is strengthened when in power. Good becomes better and bad becomes worse. In a study by DeCelles et al. (2012) participants who had been primed to feel powerful and had a strong moral identity were more likely to share ticket points with others in a lottery, thus increasing the contesters’ chances of winning. This was in comparison to participants who had been primed to feel powerful and had a low moral identity who were less likely to share. Power can therefore sometimes have positive influences on one’s behavior. As power can enable people, they are more likely to take action. In one experiment, more powerful people were twice as likely to turn an irritating fan off compared to less powerful people. Powerful people are also more likely than others to offer help to strangers in distress. Conversely, less powerful people may be passive because of feelings of helplessness, as in Seligman’s famous experiment on dogs that first learned that they could not escape an electric shock. Later the conditioned dogs did not to escape electric shocks even if they could. Other studies have shown that people in control can cope with more stress than people who are not in control. Conclusion Evidently, the will to power is not the only motivating force in humans. Altruism, what some call love may be an even stronger motivator. Altruism does not necessarily have to be condescending or patronizing. However, even love has a component of power. There is no one that has more power over you as the person you love and you have power over the one who loves you. In addition, just as humans may want power they also fear and obey those that are more powerful than them. If there was no obedience there would be no power. As it is said in Bob Dylan’s song; “It may be devil or it may be the lord, but you´re gonna have to serve somebody”. Humans, like apes, struggle internally between their own selfish needs and their instinct to help and share, alternating between cooperation and conflict. Altruism and Machiavellianism, the former based on principles of caring, helping and sharing and the latter on the lust for power and control; seem to be two opposing and natural political tendencies in humans. Humans, like apes, are often eager to help, share and care but there is always an individual limit to how much one is willing to sacrifice. In addition, most seemingly altruistic acts are often in the best long term interest of the helper. Unless one is immensely superior or powerful, it is important to be able to build friendships and alliances in the political game. In addition, no power lasts forever. When your lose your powers those you have oppressed will have their revenge. From this perspective, it seems that Hobbes was partially right. The state of nature may well be a war of all against all (“Bellum omnium contra omnes”) and there may be a need to create a political culture that protects us from economic, political and informational power abuse. Naturally, empowerment is equally, or more, important. Here are two interesting videos on psychology sent to me from an ex student. One is on why we kiss and the other tries to explain why some things frighten us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEikGKDVsCc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixQbCXLUUj8 This is a new interesting project to map the brain, The Big Brain Project:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/352941 |
AuthorThis is my class blog for IB Psychology. Here I will publish reflections on psychology, reviews of psychology books, recommended links, lecture notes, and information on psychology topics that are not covered by the syllabus. You are free to add comments or ask me questions. Archives
August 2015
Categories
All
|