Are you good or evil?

[Guest guest]

That was the title of a program I just watched that looked at neuroscientific explanations for good and evil.

Interesting program, but amusing and rather biased.

The basis for "good" was being part of a collective, the ability to bond with others and belong to a group, to subvert your own goals for the goal of the group. "Evil" was not being part of a group, not wanting to join in or having lots of friends and family, in addition to the more traditional forms of evil such as harming others, etc.

I had a problem with this. First off, it is based on a fairly modern idea of what is "good and best" for humans that is derived in no small part from Freud and Jung. They believed that a person needed a "base," that is to say something that gave them meaning, recognition, a feeling of self worth, etc. This, they said, was intimate relationships with others. Family such intimacy, a structured hierarchy, such as that of the military, could suffice.

However, there is another base: work. Work can be pretty much anything from a regular job, to writing or other creative work, to study, to scientific research, etc. These are things that would fulfill the same functions as intimate human relations described above would provide. In other words, not being a social butterfly wasn't seen as "wrong."

My point here is that is their definition of good and evil valid? Is it "good" enough to simply want to do no harm but at the same time not want to be part of some group or collective? By the same token, could not evil people also join a collective and work together to perform even greater acts of evil than they could alone? I believe the answer is yes in both cases. Certainly many people have passed unnoticed who were good but left no trace of themselves just as history shows there are many who have banded together and caused terrible evil to the world.

In that same vein, the program mentioned rituals to bond people together. They used a sports team and tested blood levels. They found that Oxytocin levels rose as the team did warm ups which they believed indicated bonding and they said this indicated "good." Boy Scouts, the military and in a broad sense even church uses rituals to bond the members. The Nazis and Communists also had rituals to bond their members and look at what they did. Cults and other secret groups likewise use ritual to bond their members together. So I don't think Oxytocin levels nor bonding rituals are a measure of "good" but rather the degree one is assimilating into a group for good or bad.

Another thing was the use of PET scans of the brain and certain genetic tests. They said that the brains of murderers all showed a lack of activity is certain sections and many psychopaths had a certain gene anomaly. However, some people with those same traits, including a researcher, were not killers. They said it was based on one's upbringing that determined if the traits were "activated" and one became a killer. Again I think this is flawed. How many people have committed murder but did NOT have either the low brain function or the gene? I'm sure there are plenty of them.

Lastly, it was interesting to note that they said a study showed that the number of psychopaths was four times higher than the general population in the upper levels of business. They said that modern business was the perfect environment of psychopaths because so much of it was built on personal relationships. This is something I read about in the book "The Culture of Narcissism." It said that as business became more bureaucratic, the more narcissists, and one would presume psychopaths, would flourish. This was so because of the ease with which both can use charisma, body language and the ability to get inside another's head and manipulate them would help them rise to the top. These same types are risk takers and not concerned with harm caused to others. It is also interesting that the better they were thought of by their peers, the more show and flash they were, the lower their actual performance on the real aspects of the job. Still, because of their manipulative skills, they keep getting put in charge. Most likely this is contributed heavily to the current economic crisis.

I'm betting a survey of politicians will be much higher that 4 times.

So, groupthink = good but psychopaths can use charisma to fake it and victimize people, even large groups. Flawed indeed.

In closing, I think this line of research is going down a dangerous road. Not only are these findings being used to get murders off for their crimes (I killed her but my genes and brain made me do it) but it could also lead to new forms of control of the masses such as through mass ritual (already tried and true) and chemicals (seen in Sci Fi like THX 1138, etc.).

[Guest guest]

This sounds very much like a program I watched a while ago. It was indeed

interesting, particularly that the researcher on the program had the

'psychopath' gene and brain difference and I guess points to the fact that just

because someone has such things doesn't necessarily mean they going to end up a

bad person.

It is very worrying when such things become excuses for people behaving badly

and even murdering others though.

Trying to label what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is rather problamatic from

what I can see - you've pointed out quite a few reasons yourself.

It does seem that the majority of people (I suspect mostly NT) are social

creatures and have an almost automatic distrust of those who are not as social.

It is sad IMO that throughout history often the classic loners are the ones who

become scapegoats and victimized (even killed) by the 'group'.

It has been proved that most people are more likely to commit atrocities in a

group, because of peer pressure etc - and if not atrocities than at least most

are more likely to go along with the group and lie etc. That some get increased

Oxytocin level is no indication that such things are 'good' IMO. Something can

feel good and be bad for one.

Thinking further on the role of 'groups', I wouldn't say all groups are bad, but

with many if you disagree with the general consensus then one runs the risk of

being ostracized, or in some cases even vicitmized. I'd like to make it clear

that not all groups are such though, but sadly many are.

>

> That was the title of a program I just watched that looked at

> neuroscientific explanations for good and evil.

>

> Interesting program, but amusing and rather biased.

>

> The basis for " good " was being part of a collective, the ability to bond

> with others and belong to a group, to subvert your own goals for the goal of

> the group. " Evil " was not being part of a group, not wanting to join in

> or having lots of friends and family, in addition to the more traditional

> forms of evil such as harming others, etc.

>

> I had a problem with this. First off, it is based on a fairly modern idea

> of what is " good and best " for humans that is derived in no small part from

> Freud and Jung. They believed that a person needed a " base, " that is to

> say something that gave them meaning, recognition, a feeling of self worth,

> etc. This, they said, was intimate relationships with others. Family such

> intimacy, a structured hierarchy, such as that of the military, could suffice.

>

> However, there is another base: work. Work can be pretty much anything

> from a regular job, to writing or other creative work, to study, to

scientific

> research, etc. These are things that would fulfill the same functions as

> intimate human relations described above would provide. In other words, not

> being a social butterfly wasn't seen as " wrong. "

>

> My point here is that is their definition of good and evil valid? Is it

> " good " enough to simply want to do no harm but at the same time not want to

> be part of some group or collective? By the same token, could not evil

> people also join a collective and work together to perform even greater acts

of

> evil than they could alone? I believe the answer is yes in both cases.

> Certainly many people have passed unnoticed who were good but left no trace of

> themselves just as history shows there are many who have banded together and

> caused terrible evil to the world.

>

> In that same vein, the program mentioned rituals to bond people together.

> They used a sports team and tested blood levels. They found that Oxytocin

> levels rose as the team did warm ups which they believed indicated bonding

> and they said this indicated " good. " Boy Scouts, the military and in a broad

> sense even church uses rituals to bond the members. The Nazis and

> Communists also had rituals to bond their members and look at what they did.

Cults

> and other secret groups likewise use ritual to bond their members together.

> So I don't think Oxytocin levels nor bonding rituals are a measure of

> " good " but rather the degree one is assimilating into a group for good or bad.

>

> Another thing was the use of PET scans of the brain and certain genetic

> tests. They said that the brains of murderers all showed a lack of activity

> is certain sections and many psychopaths had a certain gene anomaly.

> However, some people with those same traits, including a researcher, were not

> killers. They said it was based on one's upbringing that determined if the

> traits were " activated " and one became a killer. Again I think this is

flawed.

> How many people have committed murder but did NOT have either the low brain

> function or the gene? I'm sure there are plenty of them.

>

> Lastly, it was interesting to note that they said a study showed that the

> number of psychopaths was four times higher than the general population in

> the upper levels of business. They said that modern business was the

> perfect environment of psychopaths because so much of it was built on

personal

> relationships. This is something I read about in the book " The Culture of

> Narcissism. " It said that as business became more bureaucratic, the more

> narcissists, and one would presume psychopaths, would flourish. This was so

> because of the ease with which both can use charisma, body language and the

> ability to get inside another's head and manipulate them would help them rise

> to the top. These same types are risk takers and not concerned with harm

> caused to others. It is also interesting that the better they were thought of

> by their peers, the more show and flash they were, the lower their actual

> performance on the real aspects of the job. Still, because of their

> manipulative skills, they keep getting put in charge. Most likely this is

> contributed heavily to the current economic crisis.

>

> I'm betting a survey of politicians will be much higher that 4 times.

>

> So, groupthink = good but psychopaths can use charisma to fake it and

> victimize people, even large groups. Flawed indeed.

>

> In closing, I think this line of research is going down a dangerous road.

> Not only are these findings being used to get murders off for their crimes

> (I killed her but my genes and brain made me do it) but it could also lead

> to new forms of control of the masses such as through mass ritual (already

> tried and true) and chemicals (seen in Sci Fi like THX 1138, etc.).

>

>

>