Abu Ghraib and Ordinary People as torturers
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: ON ORDINARY PEOPLE AS TORTURERS (references in article)
Social psychological evidence emphasizes the power of social context; in other words, the power of the interpersonal situation. Social psychology has accumulated a century of knowledge about how people influence each other for good or ill [1]. Meta-analysis, the quantitative summary of findings across a variety of studies, reveals the size and consistency of such empirical results. Recent meta-analyses document reliable experimental evidence of social context effects across 25,000 studies of 8 million participants [2]. Abu Ghraib resulted in part from ordinary social processes, not just extraordinary individual evil. Meta-analyses suggests that the right (or wrong) social context can make almost anyone aggress, oppress, conform, and obey.
also check out http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051009/NEWS01/510090392
Louise Ogborn expressed shock when assistant manager Donna Jean Summers told her that the caller on the phone, who identified himself as “Officer Scott,” said Ogborn would have to be strip-searched. One lawyer described the caller as “a freak who plays God.”
Psychological experts say it is human nature to obey orders, no matter how evil they might seem – as was illustrated in one of the most famous and frightening human experiments of the 20th century.
Seeking to understand why so many Germans followed orders during the Holocaust, Dr. Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist, took out a classified ad in 1960 and 1961, inviting residents of New Haven, Conn., to take part in what they were told was a study of the relationship between punishment and learning.
drug war game not working
If drug laws make no difference in drug use, why bother having them? (disclaimer: I'm anti-drug...and anti-drug war...)
AJPH – Abstracts: Reinarman et al. 94 (5): 836
With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.
a chance to listen to Dr. Laura at the LA Times Festival of Books
I went to the Los Angeles “Festival of Books” and there happened to be space at Laura Schlessinger’s (known as “Dr. Laura”, though I don’t think she’s a doctor) discussion of her new book (The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands?), hosted by Marta Waller. I was prepared for an hour of “fair and balanced” opinion about why discussion of the Iraq was is unpatriotic.
I thought she was actually pretty smart and humorous as well. Her main points were that there were some ideas that came out of the women’s movement which were actually detrimental to women. For example, women get the idea that the fact that they should have equal oppornity means that men should be just like them. In truth, we all know that men and women are different…not really worse or better, but just different in the way we approach things and it’s useful to act as such. As well, women shouldn’t feel less because they choose to stay at home and raise children. Children are important. Bravo.
She even said that there were important things that came from feminism, though perhaps as a result of her need to entertain and sell books, she constantly made fun of the very same feminists. I can’t help but think that she would reach more people if she stopped insulting them as a lot of feminists would perhaps listen to her. She also had extreme views on “the diversity crowd” who she felt were trying to eliminate all traditional values, leaving no room for those of us (ie. me) who truly believe in diversity, including allowing those people who believe in traditional values to practice them….just don’t try to force them on the rest of us.
I actually ended up asking her a question about this, concerning whether she felt the need to villify the “opposing” view in order to entertain and sell more books. Predictably, she answered that she was too “intellectually honest”, but I think if she stopped and thought, she’d realize that there is a contradiction there. A lot of conservative talk radio (and some liberal stations too) entertain by villifying the other side at the expense of any meaningful debate. But as research on motivated reasoning would say, her entertainment is probably more effective than meaningful debate anyways.
My biggest complaint was for Marta Waller, KTLA anchorwoman, who “off handedly” threw out how much admiration she had for Dr. Laura because she didn’t “flip-flop” unlike others….like public officials. This went on for several minutes and it was painful. She was so obvious about trying to un-obviously attack Kerry that I felt insulted as an audience member. If she really wanted to say “I think Kerry flip-flops on issues and so you should vote for Bush”, I would have respected it MUCH more if she’d just said that. The way she said it was so calculated and unnatural that it made me wonder if she approached her newscasts with the same degree of calculation. I’ll likely write a letter to KTLA to that effect.
The ironic thing is that Dr. Laura’s nuanced views of feminism (though masked behind her outrageous personality) are exactly the kind of nuance that her conservative ilk (ie. Marta Waller) brand as flip-flopping. Perhaps she has intelligent things to say, but they are bound to get lost if the general societal trend to demonstrate what conservatives call “resolve”, or what I would call “lack of open mindedness” or “stubborness”, continues.
the logic of American Politics leads to anger
I have no misconception about changing Republican votes in November, but I think we all (me too) have to look at where we fall into the classic poli-sci trap of believing what we want to believe. Everyone wants to believe that they’re candidate is right on every issue because nobody likes to make value tradeoffs. Nobody wants to say, “I support Kerry because I agree with 80% of his stances and only 60% of Bush’s”. Believe it or not, I actually was ambivalent about the war. There were good reasons for it (humanitarian, IMHO) and against it (complex, volatile situation). I have no doubt that there are lots of Iraqis who do like our being there just as I have no doubt that there are lots of Iraqis who don’t (the ones who throw bombs).
The thing which saddens me most about the direction of our country is how polarized we’ve become and how unwilling we are to tolerate complexity. Bush “doesn’t do nuance” which I thought was great for Afghanistan but has been disastrous in Iraq…and somehow he’s convinced the country that simplicity is a virtue. Definitely not all the time. And this desire to have simple positions leads us to super-polarized debates like the one we’re having here. There is a kernel of truth in most things we post or most things people debate about in life, but people are generally too passionate/angry to acknowledge the kernel of truth in what people they disagree with have to say. The net result is not only a lack of meaningful debate, but also an animosity that pervades neighborhoods. People all over the US are angry at each other and spiritually, it diminishes all of us.