The psychology of evilness, are we so predictable?

 

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

I am not a psychologist and don't work with humans and their minds. 

I am not an expert, but I am a human and curious about what makes us what we are. 

So if you read further, please keep that in your mind.

I've recently seen a Danish movie called ”The Exception".

It is a very good movie, and worth the time to see. It is about the depravity people can develop when they are in a group. How we are searching for a commitment in a group, and choose, in many cases the easy way in a group.

The story is about how we follow the group and their reaction to a situation, we don't want to be the person who is outside the group, we want to feel strong and the group makes us strong.

We aren't the person outside, we are inside.

If we follow.

It is a very sad picture of us, the humans.

Then I started to think! 

Or at least tried to think.

Is it so that we always follow the group? Are we so predictable?

Some studies are saying so, of course. (You can always find a study that says what you want to hear if you search for it).

There are also studies saying the opposite!

So it is in the world of science. There is no truth without a change through time. 

At least when it comes to human psychology.

Knowledge is of fundamental importance to human development. 

The more we know, the more we learn and find out about anything, and the more we understand how little we know.

It is the complexity of the truth, and the truth is always changing.

(Freud was for a long time the truth of psychology and psychiatry, that has changed, thank God, he had too simple explanations of the human mind, I think. And what I know is he only had 12 people in his study, he based his science on. 12 people he already had a relationship with.)

7 psychological untruths

Written by Maja Lundbäck and was found in the Swedish magazine "Psykologi tidningen" (Psychology magazine). Translated by me (with some help from Google) and a bit rewritten. 

1/The observer impact

That individuals in a gathering stay uninvolved when they see somebody being exposed to wrongdoing is known as the observer impact. The thought of the impact came to fruition following 28-year-old Kitty Genovese was ruthlessly assaulted and killed in New York while a large number of witnesses watched without mediating. Analysts Bibb Latanés and John Darley's exploratory examinations showed that the obligation regarding acting is fanned out the more individuals are available - and diminishes the likelihood that the singular will act.

However, … another 2019 concentrate by Richard Philpot, distributed in the American Clinician, places the issue of aiding conduct in something else altogether. By concentrating on genuine reconnaissance pictures from savage circumstances in three nations, he saw that in 90% of the cases it was somewhere around one individual (yet normally a few) who mediated and attempted to help the person in question. Likewise, he saw that the likelihood that somebody would mediate expanded with the number of onlookers.

2/Preparing impact on environment uneasiness

Might it at any point be that those presented with the word warm turn out to be more worried about environmental change than others? Specialists had subjects tackle an errand in which the word hot, the word cold, or neither one of the words showed up. The members then, at that point, needed to answer regardless of whether they had confidence in environmental change. The review from 2014 showed that the guinea pigs were impacted - the gathering that heard the word warm trusted in an unnatural weather change to a more noteworthy degree than the others, and they were likewise more worried about the environment.

Be that as it may, ... at the point when scientists in an enormous scope replicability project set off on a mission to rehash the review, individuals in the various gatherings displayed a similar degree of worry about environmental change whether or not they had heard the words cold or hot previously. The review was important for the replicability project Numerous Labs 2: Examining Variety in Replicability Across Tests and Settings, 2018.

3/The Woman Macbeth's impact

A sensation of needing to wash away one's wrongdoings - or one's disgrace - is known as the Woman Macbeth impact, after the fundamental person in Shakespeare's play Macbeth. (She envisions bloodstains on her hands after a homicide she has committed.) In a recent report, scientists Zhong and Liljenquist had the option to show that we feel an expanded need to wash after moral offenses. They reached this resolution after subjects either helped or undermined a colleague - and afterward evaluated five cleaning items and five non-cleaning items. It worked out that the people who subverted a representative to a more prominent degree than the others favored the cleaning items.

However, ... in a review where scientists attempted to repeat this, the cleaning items were similarly famous whether or not the subjects helped or undermined the worker. The review was finished inside the system of the replicability project Numerous Labs 2: Exploring Variety in Replicability Across Tests and Settings, 2018.

4/The marshmallow test

Put a marshmallow before a five-year-old and let him know there will be another if he simply holds up some time and doesn't eat the first immediately - and afterward leave the room. Analyst Walter Mischel's undeniably popular marshmallow exploration showed how well youngsters brought into the world during the 1960s could oppose the temptation to eat the treat in one go. Later subsequent meet-ups would show that great poise as a youngster was related to outcomes throughout everyday life, like better grades.

Yet, ... in another review, distributed in Mental Science in 2018, a few specialists have modified the test. This time, the scientists controlled for guardians' pay and instructive level. Furthermore, it worked out that it was more normal for kids from additional wealthy foundations to hold back from destroying their marshmallow rights. Similar kids additionally succeeded better throughout everyday life. Succeeding great in life appears rather be connected to class.

5/Power presenting

On the off potential for success that you have for a couple of moments in a power present, similar to a dominant man, with your arms high and your legs somewhat wide separated, you will have higher testosterone, lower cortisone, lower pressure chemicals, become more gamble taking - and likewise, you will get a feeling of force. Scientist Amy Cuddy showed this in a review, which she then, at that point, introduced in an enormously famous TED Talk from 2010.

However... Different scientists, notwithstanding, couldn't imitate her outcomes. In 2016, 33 examinations were at last surveyed in Mental Science, and power presenting was decided to have frail help.

In any case, ... Amy Cuddy has, after this cutting, done a meta-examination of 50 examinations, which was likewise distributed in Mental Science. All things considered, the specialists accept that power presenting causes you to feel more grounded - and that it can have constructive outcomes over the long haul.

6/The facial input hypothesis

The supposed facial criticism hypothesis expresses that we essentially feel more joyful assuming we grin. In a recent report by Fritz Strack, subjects were permitted to watch kids' shows while holding a pencil in their mouth. At the point when they had the pen between their teeth, the sides of their mouths were constrained up - and afterward, they thought the comics were more amusing. In any case, when they held the pen with their lips with a puckered sharp face, they didn't think the comics were as tomfoolery. The review was distributed in the Diary of Character and Social Psychology.

Be that as it may... a recent report that attempted to recreate the first review, though with many, a lot more members, neglected to create any critical outcomes to help it. This regardless of involving a similar series as in the first review. The review was driven by Dutch clinician Eric-Jan Wagenmakers and is distributed in Viewpoints on Mental Science.

7/Feelings and hazard taking

Could you rather get a kiss from your number one entertainer or 500 bucks? In a 2001 trial, Yuval Rottenstreich and Christopher Hsee let understudies pick. At the point when the subjects thought there was just a one percent chance that any of this would work out, 70% of the members picked the kiss. Be that as it may, when members accepted the result were sure, that just 35% favored the kiss. The outcome upheld the scientists' speculation that our positive feelings affect our decisions where the result is questionably contrasted with when we know the result.

However, … in the enormous scope replicability project Numerous Labs 2: Exploring Variety in Replicability Across Tests and Settings, 2018, the outcome would be raised in doubt. Rather than 40 members, north of 7,000 individuals was studied. This time probably as many individuals picked the kiss as the cash, however, all things considered, fundamentally more individuals picked the kiss when the result was sure! Running against the norm, then.

Me trying to make a conclusion

This could perhaps tell why it is so difficult to understand the human mind. 

And human beings. 

The interpretation of a study is almost as important as the study itself. That's why it is so important with randomized controlled trials if it is possible.

Scientists should not know who has or hasn't been the subject for whatever they are searching for an answer. 

It is so easy to put our own volition on how a result should be, subconsciously you will direct it to your belief in the study.

I think that is the main problem with us humans, we want things so strongly to be in a certain way that we only see them that way. We don't always see the opportunity there is.

And that is making our world.