Are humans like Ants?

Everybody knows that war is always going to lead to death and most likely destruction. But are we the only species that have “wars.” According to some emerging research ants have a tendency to go to war against other colonies in their area. If you actually think about it for a second, it does make sense.

Some species attack and take over neighboring colonies. Others are fewer expansionists but just as aggressive; they invade colonies to steal eggs or larvae, which they either eat or raise as workers/slaves. (Ant)

Not only do humans share their aggressiveness with ants, but social patterns as well. Ants have a well organized social structure that allows them build their ant colonies and function as they do. Humans also have a social “norms” that they follow. Most humans will generally follow the crowd. Solomon Asch did some a very interesting experiment to determine how likely someone was to conform to a group.

Imagine yourself in the following situation: You sign up for a psychology experiment, and on a specified date you and seven others whom you think are also subjects arrive and are seated at a table in a small room. You don't know it at the time, but the others are actually associates of the experimenter, and their behavior has been carefully scripted. You're the only real subject. The experimenter arrives and tells you that the study in which you are about to participate concerns people's visual judgments. She places two cards before you. The card on the left contains onevertical line. The card on the right displays three lines of varying length.

The experimenter asks all of you, one at a time, to choose which of the three lines on the right card matches the length of the line on the left card. The task is repeated several times with different cards. On some occasions the other "subjects" unanimously choose the wrong line. It is clear to you that they are wrong, but they have all given the same answer.


What would you do? Would you go along with the majority opinion, or would you "stick to your guns" and trust your own eyes? (Solomon)

Though most people would say they would trust their own eyes, Solomon Asch’s experiment proved otherwise.

To Asch's surprise, 37 of the 50 subjects conformed to the majority at least once, and 14 of them conformed on more than 6 of the 12 trials. When faced with a unanimous wrong answer by the other group members, the mean subject conformed on 4 of the 12 trials. Asch was disturbed by these results: "The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct."(Solomon)

After looking at such a simple experiment to see how important it is for humans to conform to the majority, leads us back to the ants. In the ant’s social structure not conforming to the rest of the populous means death. In our society, not following social norms (thing that the normal populous does and considers normal) means being looked at as strange or weird.

For the most average adult, their day goes day-in and day-out doing pretty much the same thing over and over again. For some its wake up, eat breakfast, go to work, eat lunch, go back to work, leave work, come home, eat dinner, relax and go to bed to wake up the next day and do the same thing. Ants lives are continuously the same thing. Each has their own specific job that they must carry out. Workers work, queens have babies, warriors defend, and gatherers gather.

Can humans who are the dominant species on earth really share such basic patterns in social networking and aggressiveness with ants? Ants are such a simple and small animal to compare humans to. But humans are aggressive; anyone can see that by looking at our history. Not only do both species share aggressiveness but humans share their ability and need to conform as well. Though you can easily pick these two species apart in other ways, like their ability to hold eight times their own weight, but one cannot ignore the similarities that humans do share with ants.

Works Cited:

“Ant” Wikipedia 6 December 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant#Cooperation_and_competition

“Solomon Asch Experiment (1958): A study of conformity” Age-of-the-sage.org http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html

Propaganda and War

During war propaganda is used to promote and even to protest war. It is used to sway the general populous to their side. “The “good guys” and the “bad guys” can often both be guilty of misleading their people with distortions, exaggerations, subjectivity, inaccuracy and even fabrications, in order to receive support and a sense of legitimacy.” (Shah) But even knowing all these distortions one cannot help but think of the appealing nature that the media uses to portray their side of the conflict. This propaganda can be seen in just about every war this world has seen, from the Cold War to World War II, and even the current war in Iraq.

“The first casualty when war comes is Truth.” These words spoken by U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson in 1917 couldn’t be more right. (qtd. In Shah) Every day an American turns the television on they are bombarded with all sorts of propaganda. Take the past presidential election for instance. Everybody knows that each candidate won’t be able to fulfil all the promises they make during the campaign, but each American likes to think they will be able to. Promises regarding the current War on Terrorism and the Iraqi War that can’t be solved overnight that will take years to complete. “Probably every conflict is fought on at least two grounds: the battlefield and the minds of the people via propaganda.” (Shah)

Common ways of using propaganda are using selective stories, partial facts, reinforcing reasons and motivations, and demonizing the other side. The point of all these varying ways is because each person will be sway more one way after seeing a particular message, ad, or article. Some people may base a decision on partial facts given by the media, and other people may sway at the media demonizing the other side. The Prime Minister of Britain during World War II once said that, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” (qtd. In Shah)

When National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was interviewed on Monday
[Oct. 15th 2001] on the Arab-language channel Al-Jazzeera, she explained that
she did not want American Networks to air Osama bin Laden tapes because they
were “propaganda.”

“[A] 15-minute or 20-minute tape... that sat there and did nothing but
incite hatred and, ultimately, attacks against innocent American was not a
matter of news, it was a matter of propaganda...,” (Gillin)

An award-winning investigative journalist, Phillip Knightly once pointed out that while some stories may be lies, not everything is a lie, and some of the stories could be true. (Shah) But the dilemma here? How do we know what is true and what is a lie? Even if you look up information on the other side chances are you are just looking up more propaganda. The media portrays its information through an already distorted lens.

The embedded reporters, dependent on the military for food and transportation as
well as security, have a natural and understandable tendency to protect those
who are protecting them. They are not allowed to report outside of the units and
are, in effect, captives. (Hedges)

During wartime, the public opinion is very important, because without supporters, without propaganda, war isn’t as effective. As Adolf Hitler once said about propaganda:

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even
the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it...
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see
paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched
sort of life as paradise. (qtd. in Shah)

As most can imagine and reflect on the images and messages that the media has put out to influence the populous to sway. Media is an effective way of using propaganda to make people believe that their particular cause is important. The people determine the success of a war. Even General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II once said about the general populous:

Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England,
nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the
leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter
to drag the people along, whether it is democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or
a parliament, or a communist dictatorship... Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack
of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country. (qtd in Shah)

Propaganda will always come hand-in-hand with war. The world cannot help that fact, but the only way we can fight the general masses is by being aware that the media is very much biased and that most of what we see is propaganda. Research is always effective in determining the truthfulness of an ideal or message, but knowing that whatever source you use is biased is a key determining factor. In this Age of Information with the vast usage of media such as television, radio, and the ever growing Internet, it’s hard to tell who’s who and what’s biased or not.


Works Citied:
Grillin, Beth. “U.S. Intensifies the War of Words” Global Issues 21, October 2001 http://www.globalissues.org/article/283/us-intensifies-the-war-of-words
Hedges, Chris. “War: Realites and Myths” Anitwar.com 11 June 2005 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hedges.php?articleid=6294
Shah, Anup. “War, Propaganda and the Media” Global Issues. 31 March 2005 http://www.globalissues.org/article/157/war-propaganda-and-the-media