Revenge?

Revenge?

Revenge at its simplest is somewhat of an easy concept to understand. If something is done to someone, it is easy to assume they will retaliate. It is not often that violent or vengeful actions are taken against a party without some sort of revenge. In the world we live in, some sort of revenge is often required. If action is not taken a country or government seems weak. Not only that, but they lose the faith of the people in the sense that the government will not stand up to aggressors. One of the greatest examples of our time would have to be the US retaliation on Afghanistan for the September 11th attacks. In the beginning the reasons were clear cut. They attacked us so we attacked them. But at some point in time, the reasons were changed and the focus of the war switched to Iraq. Similarly, the Unites States took a stance of non-involvement during World War II. This stance stood firm until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, forcing the United States into the war and eventually to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At what point does revenge become something more? Fine suggests that certain actions are taken due to the unexpected consequences of one decision. Opportunities arise from the outcome of one action that allows for advancements in other areas to be taken. He states “Social problems are linked in complex, dynamic, and interconnected ways… ‘solving’ social problems creates both opportunities and constraints that … generate other problems through a process [termed] ‘chaining social problems.’” According to this theory, revenge will no longer be revenge when the consequences create an opportunity to gain something worthwhile.

So the simple act of making sure someone “gets what they deserve” is not so simple after all. In fact it creates a complicated string of opportunities in which one is able to gain power and influence. In effect, what might start out as a simple act of retaliation, could turn into a means to permanently change the balance of power within the global community. For instance, the War in Afghanistan led to the War in Iraq, which resulted in the execution of Saddam Hussein.

But is this type of action truly necessary? It is clear throughout history it is not enough to just get revenge. Governments pursue objectives far after the necessary retaliation is taken. I can only think that this can be explained by the fact that the only guaranteed security a country can have is to be at the top. In order to make it to the top one must take every opportunity possible to expand influence, even after the necessary revenge has been taken.

Fine, Gary Alan. "The Chaining of Social Problems: Solutions and Unintended Consequences in the Age of Betrayal." Social problems 53.1 (2006): 3-17.

False Confessions: How effective is torture?

False Confessions: How effective is torture?

Torture has been used for centuries as a means of coercing information from people. Even American detectives and investigators use certain interrogation tactics to make one uncomfortable enough to give up information. However, the information given may not be as accurate as it seems at first glance. The information retrieved from people during interrogations may be falsified due to the stress the person is put under.

Saul Kassin writes about the different kinds of falsified confessions. He writes that there are three main types: voluntary, compliant, and internalized (Kassin). Voluntary confessions are just that, those that are given freely by innocent people without prompting from authority figures. Compliant confessions are those given to remove oneself from an uncomfortable situation, or avoid some kind of punishment. Internalized false confessions, Kassin writes, are those given by highly vulnerable individuals under severe stress from interrogation techniques (Kassin). He also states that 20-25 percent of those exonerated from crimes actually confessed to committing the crime.

Investigations put so much faith into the information they gain from interrogations; however this information is in some cases far from the truth. The stress that one is put under during interrogations can cause them to make up stories or, as stated before, confess to crimes they did not commit. Interrogations can even to so far as to cause people to create false memories for the crimes in which they did not commit. Henkel and Coffman write that in experimental trials, confessions proved to be the greatest influence on conviction rates, and are more powerful than eyewitness testimonies and character witnesses (Henkel and Coffman).

Interrogation tactics and torture are clearly effective in putting the mind and the body into uncomfortable situations and gaining information. But the effectiveness of these techniques is completely put into question when the stress of the situation gives false information. False confessions leads to innocent people being punished or even executed for crimes they did not commit.

In the broader scheme of things, torture is an ineffective tactic on prisoners or war. Not only is the act of harming an individual to try and obtain information morally questionable, it lacks the support to prove it is a reliable source of information. They may gain information, but the information is likely to be inaccurate and even fabricated within the mind of the individual due to the stress they have been put through.

Coffman, Kimberly J., and Linda A. Henkel. "Memory Distortions in Coerced False Confessions: A Source Monitoring Framework Analysis." Applied Cognitive Psychology 18.5 (2004): pp.567-588.
Kassin, Saul M. "False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform." Current Directions in Psychological Science 17.4 (2008): 249-53.

What If Woman Ran the World?

What If Woman Ran the World?

Men and woman are obviously two different types of people. They handle states of stress differently. Men tend to become more physically aggressive in moments of conflict. Women in turn are more likely to gossip, start rumors, and be more inadvertently violent towards one another without causing physical harm. Men have always been viewed as the providers, primarily due to their stronger physical strength and the ongoing social tradition. Stereotypically men "bring home the bacon". Women have historically been viewed as the caregivers and the gentle nurturers.

While women are in the military, the larger percentage of those in the armed forces who actually see combat are men. Women are not only physically weaker than men, but they can also be seen more emotional than men. Women are therefore often viewed as the weaker sex because emotions can lead them to make emotional and irrational responses to situations. With the problems of co-ed bunking and other such reasons, women are kept away from the battlefield. However, it has been shown that men more inclined to react aggressively and violently in retaliation to a stimulus. Campbell writes that there is 1 violent offending male for every 9 compared to the 1 for every 56 women (Campbell).

Campbell also states within the article that provocation increases aggression, and rightfully so (Campbell). It is part of human nature for one to retaliate to an attack on their person as a means of self defense. The study showed that with lower levels and much higher levels of provocation men and women showed to be somewhat equal in regards to the likelihood of aggressive retaliation. However, major differences showed when it came to the intermediate levels of provocation. Men proved to be much more likely to use aggressive retaliation.

While the difference might be slight, women are still less likely to engage in aggressive behavior. If women were more prominent within the government and the military, it is possible that a decrease in violence would occur. Women might be able to think more clearly in times of provocation which could prove to counterbalance the male tendancy to act aggressively more quickly. Whether this be on the battle field or in meetings with Heads of State, it is possible that women can decrease quick aggressive responses.



One might argue the fact that women are also more emotional and may be more prone to act irrationally due to emotional responses to a situation. And with the stress of diplomatic decisions one also might argue that the gap between differences in aggressive responses to a situation will be closed by the amount of provocation. But, if men and women were more equally present within the diplomatic society it is possible there will be a decrease of aggressive retaliation to a situation.

Campbell, Anne. "Sex Differences in Direct Aggression: What are the Psychological Mediators?" Aggression and Violent Behavior 11.3 (2006): 237-64.

Don't Let Your Emotions Get the Best of You

Every day we fall victim to the ploys of advertising agencies and companies who try to sell their overpriced products. We also fall victim to the opinions and the judgments of the people around us. Today’s society leaves us with little room to create opinions of our own. With the influence of media and others our opinions are rarely formed on hard fact. Rather than viewing all sides of an argument, or determining whether we truly need a certain product, we allow our environment to determine how we should think and what we should by.

Humans are emotional beings. If something makes us feel warm and fuzzy on the inside then assume that it must be a good thing. If something sounds evil it must be evil. It goes back to the old argument: if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it must be a duck. However if you look closer at the “duck” it isn’t really a duck at all. Our emotions can cause us to make decisions and judgments that are erred. However we are taught from a young age to listen to our instincts.

Having emotional reactions is not the problem. However, making decisions strictly based on an emotional response to a specific topic is. Emotions should not just be felt, but also understood. To avoid these irrational decisions based on emotion, one must understand that an emotional reaction is occuring and seperate it from rational decision making. In his book On Dialogue, David Bohm explains his theory of dialogue and flow of ideas. In order to have a dialogue, Bohm states that one must suspend their assumptions (Bohm, p. 23). Also emotional reactions must be suspended and reflected upon. Instead of just reacting to them and allowing emotions to take over our cognitive processes, one must recognize and suspend their emtions.

Molden and Higgins concluded in their study that there are two main strategies that people use when making judgements: eager and vigilant (Molden; Higgins). Eager strategies are those that are mostly derived from achieving aspirations and furthering of oneself. Vigilant are those that wish to prevent bad outcomes (Molden; Higgins). Subjects during the study were more likely to make decisions that allowed them to be perceived in a greater light. So it seems that most decisions are based on one's perceived wellness.

However, one's own perceived wellness is very much different from one's actual wellness. It is a bias view. Like emotional responses they cannot be trusted and likewise must be viewed under much scrutiny. In order to make more informed and rational decisions, one must suspend their preconceived notions and emotional responses in order to make rational decisions.

References

Bohm, David. On Dialogue. New York, New York: Routledge, 1996.

Molden, Daniel C., and E. Tory Higgins. "How Preferences for Eager Versus Vigilant Judgment Strategies Affect Self-Serving Conclusions." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44.5 (2008): 1219-28

Whatever Happened to Hand to Hand Combat?

Whatever happened to hand to hand combat?



Throughout history, mankind has greatly excelled in the advancement of technology. Warfare technology by no means was spared by such advancements. In ancient times wars were fought with swords and horses, now they are fought with rifles, bombs, missiles, airplanes, tanks, etc. It is rare for anyone to engage in physical hand to hand, fist to fist, or even knife to knife, combat. Rather, technology has made it such that one can take part in violence from long distances, possibly from hundreds of miles away in the case of satellite guided missiles.




Now it is obvious that war is a dangerous thing and takes lives. Few wars, if any at all, actually end without a certain number of casualties. Robin M. Williams Jr. writes that “the central fact of combat is danger to life and limb; armies exist to fight, fighting means casualties,” (Williams, p 186). However as time has gone on technology has changed the means of fighting drastically. Weapons have become more violent and more efficient when it comes to doing damage.




Technology has also changed the strategies and even reasons for going to war. In fact it is possible to say that the definition of the word has changed because of technological advancements. The Cold War was a constant struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union for technological supremacy. They were competing in a war for nuclear supremacy. Like any conventional war it struck fear into the public. Americans lived in constant fear of the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union, and in turn built bomb shelters and lived in constant skepticism that the people around them could be Communists.




Marshall McLuhan states that “War and fear of war have always been considered main incentives to technological extensions of our body,” (McLuhan, p 51). McLuhan suggests that people use technologies as extensions of themselves to overcome certain limitations; the phone is the extension of the ear and mouth, the car is the extension of foot. In the case of war it is possible to suggest that the rifle is the extension of the fist, or furthermore the nuclear weapon is the extension of the entire army.




Technology is used to project the means of fighting further and further away from the person. The fear of bodily harm and the fear of casualties has propelled the advancing of weaponry. A country is often viewed as a military threat if they hold any number of nuclear weapons they hold (or is speculated to hold). The reason given for invading Iraq was the speculation that the country held weapons of mass destruction. Go a little further back in history; the Cuban Missile Crisis is another example of an international event driven by the fear of technology.

The end of WWII can be marked by the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not only was there a struggle between powers to create the atom bomb, but the devestation caused by the dropping of the atom bomb was greater than any army could have done in the same amount of time. The atomic bomb projected the fighting so far away from the person that there were virtually no offensive casualties and a massive amount of defensive casualties.


It seems as though we as people have created a difficult predicament for ourselves. On one hand, we have developed a means of fighting in order to keep our own people safe. Gain technological superiority and you are sure to win. On the other hand, the development of such technologically advanced weapons has created more fear. What will happen if nuclear weapons are actually used? Who will use them first? If nuclear weapons are used will it be the end of the world?




References
Greenwood, Ted. "Why Military Technology is Difficult to Restrain." Science, Technology, & Human Values 15.4 (1990): 412-29.

Martin, Brian. "Science, Technology and Nonviolent Action: The Case for a Utopian Dimension in the Social Analysis of Science and Technology." Social Studies of Science 27.3 (1997): 439-63.

McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Routledge, 2001.

Williams, Robin M.,Jr. "Field Observations and Surveys in Combat Zones." Social psychology quarterly 47.2 (1984): 186-92.