Thursday, July 06, 2006
Terrorism
Terrorism from the point of view of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary sociology, memetics, semiotics, epigenetics etc
In German magazine on psychology, called “Psychologie Heute”, (Psychology today), May 2006, http://www.psychologie-heute.de/ , Prof. Arie Kruglanski answers questions asked by PH. The basic topic is terrorism and how America’s research centers, in this case so called “excellence center”, works on “hacking” the reason for terrorism.
The absolutely basic idea of Arie Kruglanski is actually his definition of terrorism: “terrorism is the usage of fear in order to achieve goals”.
This definition only says what kind of method terrorism uses to achieve its goals. The more important question is why terrorism is used. And even here Prof. Kruglanski has pretty good answers. He says that people decide to use terrorism when for them there appears no other way how to pursue their goals, and when they get used to see terrorism as a means for achieving their goals.
This is absolutely correct but not completely. We must ask question: why not all of people use terrorism but only relatively few. The answer might be really shocking and it concerns our, human upbringing, or “human domestication” as some call that. Mostly we are forced to do something or not to do something, like going to school and not killing our neighbor because of fear; most of people behave like that. Some others can feel for themselves what is right and what is wrong and do not need threatening by punishment.
The next question is why it is so that some people must be brought up by fear and some not. I think the answer is still hidden to us because we know too little about genes and about epigenetics. I myself believe that epigenetics or extremely closely related science which we have not even started yet and we know no name for it, will in the future bring the answers to these questions.
It is the question of how the outside world, the “signals” from the outside world are processed in humans, in human brains, and what results it brings. I believe that the outside world signals may cause absolutely opposite reactions or results in behavior when they come to just only slightly different setup of genes or epigenetics.
I would like to explain this upon an easy to grasp example, it might be really distant example but I think it shows exactly what I mean. Imagine many glasses filled with fluids of different colors, white, red, yellow, blue black etc. Now let’s assume that these glasses with differently colored fluids stand for the different setup of genes and epigenetic information. Now, imagine further that I will take another glass with only black fluid in it, and pure in each single glass only three drops of black color. What will happen? Well, some, mostly light colors will get darker; some darker colors will get also darker, but not so much. The darkest colors will seemingly get absolutely not influenced by adding few more drops of black color.
To make the case even more complicated, we must understand that, different people are differently exposed to this “black color” and therefore they do react really differently.
Based upon my readings I would assume that all nearly all the people use fear in order to achieve their goals. Take just parents when their children do not obey them they will be told if they do not obey they will be punished.
This can be seen even with the adult persons. Criminal law is nothing else than a set of rules of basic human behavior and punishments to be executed if the rules are not followed. Children sometimes are threatened to be punished by their parents if their school grades are too poor. Again it is the fear which the parents do use to make their children learn.
The absolute majority of people perceive fear as a regular mean or method which might be applied in order to achieve the person’s goals. Parents do that, police do that, politicians do it among themselves.
The next question is why do we use fear as a method of achieving our goals? Well, the answer seems not so difficult. We might also ask at first at the theoretical level, why some method is used rather than the other in achieving some goals. Cars are now used for getting from one place to another much more than walking fast or even running. Here, the answer is obvious: it is a better method. Ok, so the next question, why do we assume one method better than the next one?
This answer is not so simple anymore. In order to perceive one method better than the other, we usually do some weighing of pluses and minuses, pros and cons of the method. So no method must be absolutely without mistakes, it only must be viewed as more convenient than the other methods.
What makes a method convenient? It might be its relative ease of use, or relatively high level of success which it promises, maybe even based upon past experiences, the speed of achieving the goal. It can be applied because other people agree with this method, even when the do not use it themselves. That means I will be awarded sympathy when I use a certain method. There are most probably many more aspects why we prefer one method to the other.
Let’s go back to fear again. Why do so many people use fear in order to pursue their goals? Because the method is relatively save to use, and based upon experience it shows high rates of success. Intimidation, that is use of threats, is pretty common in human societies. Why is this method perceived as relatively safe? As nearly everybody is afraid of something. Most of us are afraid of dying, many others are afraid of any kind of pain.
The fear of dying might be explained as a reaction of genes, as an attempt to maintain the ability to reproduce oneself. The fear of pain seems easier to explain. Everybody is afraid of pain, as pain is unpleasant signal, showing that something is wrong. Originally, it is a helpful device to protect the body for damage. But the pain used disconnected with its original purpose is no help at all, only pain and it hurts.
Here we come to another important point of human existence in a group, the need for approval. Whatever we do, we need to know that whatever we have done was ok. We go to our friends and discuss with them our ideas, our activities and look for approval. It really does not matter at what level we do it, we all, look for approval. It might be looking for approval for our existence. Professors seek approval for their theories, simple men look for approval in pubs, and women look for approval too, with their female friends or at the hairdresser’s.
So even terrorists look for approval with their activities, and they need to get the approval from the wide population. The easiest thing to do is use religion as a means of such approval, which always was the most secure way of getting approval for killing. Just recall the crusades or any other historical excuses for war. It has been mostly religion, and even nowadays religion serves as a good and fertile soil for terrorism. But not because of the religion or terrorism itself, it is because of religion connects people and people are easier to be persuaded that something is good when it is link to something which is generally understood as good, and religion is such thing.
In a village, for example, if everybody knows that a woman betrayed her husband, it is necessary for her to seek approval and level up her position, mostly by complaining about her husband, and saying how excellent her lover is compared to her husband. By this she increases her “market value” in human society and her position in hierarchy of the society she is living in.
When two men have some severe argument which even goes “handy” at the end, they will mostly look for approval of their fight among their friends.
We all need approval for our activities, even politicians and terrorists, too.
In German magazine on psychology, called “Psychologie Heute”, (Psychology today), May 2006, http://www.psychologie-heute.de/ , Prof. Arie Kruglanski answers questions asked by PH. The basic topic is terrorism and how America’s research centers, in this case so called “excellence center”, works on “hacking” the reason for terrorism.
The absolutely basic idea of Arie Kruglanski is actually his definition of terrorism: “terrorism is the usage of fear in order to achieve goals”.
This definition only says what kind of method terrorism uses to achieve its goals. The more important question is why terrorism is used. And even here Prof. Kruglanski has pretty good answers. He says that people decide to use terrorism when for them there appears no other way how to pursue their goals, and when they get used to see terrorism as a means for achieving their goals.
This is absolutely correct but not completely. We must ask question: why not all of people use terrorism but only relatively few. The answer might be really shocking and it concerns our, human upbringing, or “human domestication” as some call that. Mostly we are forced to do something or not to do something, like going to school and not killing our neighbor because of fear; most of people behave like that. Some others can feel for themselves what is right and what is wrong and do not need threatening by punishment.
The next question is why it is so that some people must be brought up by fear and some not. I think the answer is still hidden to us because we know too little about genes and about epigenetics. I myself believe that epigenetics or extremely closely related science which we have not even started yet and we know no name for it, will in the future bring the answers to these questions.
It is the question of how the outside world, the “signals” from the outside world are processed in humans, in human brains, and what results it brings. I believe that the outside world signals may cause absolutely opposite reactions or results in behavior when they come to just only slightly different setup of genes or epigenetics.
I would like to explain this upon an easy to grasp example, it might be really distant example but I think it shows exactly what I mean. Imagine many glasses filled with fluids of different colors, white, red, yellow, blue black etc. Now let’s assume that these glasses with differently colored fluids stand for the different setup of genes and epigenetic information. Now, imagine further that I will take another glass with only black fluid in it, and pure in each single glass only three drops of black color. What will happen? Well, some, mostly light colors will get darker; some darker colors will get also darker, but not so much. The darkest colors will seemingly get absolutely not influenced by adding few more drops of black color.
To make the case even more complicated, we must understand that, different people are differently exposed to this “black color” and therefore they do react really differently.
Based upon my readings I would assume that all nearly all the people use fear in order to achieve their goals. Take just parents when their children do not obey them they will be told if they do not obey they will be punished.
This can be seen even with the adult persons. Criminal law is nothing else than a set of rules of basic human behavior and punishments to be executed if the rules are not followed. Children sometimes are threatened to be punished by their parents if their school grades are too poor. Again it is the fear which the parents do use to make their children learn.
The absolute majority of people perceive fear as a regular mean or method which might be applied in order to achieve the person’s goals. Parents do that, police do that, politicians do it among themselves.
The next question is why do we use fear as a method of achieving our goals? Well, the answer seems not so difficult. We might also ask at first at the theoretical level, why some method is used rather than the other in achieving some goals. Cars are now used for getting from one place to another much more than walking fast or even running. Here, the answer is obvious: it is a better method. Ok, so the next question, why do we assume one method better than the next one?
This answer is not so simple anymore. In order to perceive one method better than the other, we usually do some weighing of pluses and minuses, pros and cons of the method. So no method must be absolutely without mistakes, it only must be viewed as more convenient than the other methods.
What makes a method convenient? It might be its relative ease of use, or relatively high level of success which it promises, maybe even based upon past experiences, the speed of achieving the goal. It can be applied because other people agree with this method, even when the do not use it themselves. That means I will be awarded sympathy when I use a certain method. There are most probably many more aspects why we prefer one method to the other.
Let’s go back to fear again. Why do so many people use fear in order to pursue their goals? Because the method is relatively save to use, and based upon experience it shows high rates of success. Intimidation, that is use of threats, is pretty common in human societies. Why is this method perceived as relatively safe? As nearly everybody is afraid of something. Most of us are afraid of dying, many others are afraid of any kind of pain.
The fear of dying might be explained as a reaction of genes, as an attempt to maintain the ability to reproduce oneself. The fear of pain seems easier to explain. Everybody is afraid of pain, as pain is unpleasant signal, showing that something is wrong. Originally, it is a helpful device to protect the body for damage. But the pain used disconnected with its original purpose is no help at all, only pain and it hurts.
Here we come to another important point of human existence in a group, the need for approval. Whatever we do, we need to know that whatever we have done was ok. We go to our friends and discuss with them our ideas, our activities and look for approval. It really does not matter at what level we do it, we all, look for approval. It might be looking for approval for our existence. Professors seek approval for their theories, simple men look for approval in pubs, and women look for approval too, with their female friends or at the hairdresser’s.
So even terrorists look for approval with their activities, and they need to get the approval from the wide population. The easiest thing to do is use religion as a means of such approval, which always was the most secure way of getting approval for killing. Just recall the crusades or any other historical excuses for war. It has been mostly religion, and even nowadays religion serves as a good and fertile soil for terrorism. But not because of the religion or terrorism itself, it is because of religion connects people and people are easier to be persuaded that something is good when it is link to something which is generally understood as good, and religion is such thing.
In a village, for example, if everybody knows that a woman betrayed her husband, it is necessary for her to seek approval and level up her position, mostly by complaining about her husband, and saying how excellent her lover is compared to her husband. By this she increases her “market value” in human society and her position in hierarchy of the society she is living in.
When two men have some severe argument which even goes “handy” at the end, they will mostly look for approval of their fight among their friends.
We all need approval for our activities, even politicians and terrorists, too.
# posted by Dalibor @ 11:58 AM 
