What Makes Humans Bad? {Conclusion}

Humans Make Humans Bad

 “What makes humans bad?” is not a question that can be answered simply.  It is subject to interpretation and can be viewed in many lights.  Nevertheless, to answer this question to the best of my ability as I conclude this journey, I would say that humans make humans bad.  Whether it is societal or individual perpetuations, psychological or neurological dysfunctions, situational circumstances, or just in the genetic composition that makes us human, we are in an endless cycle of creating bad humans.  With that being said, I do not believe we are born “bad,” we have the capacity to become bad in the right set of circumstances. 

Modern Church - - Review: Questions Are The

 Answer. (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2015, from 

http://modernchurch.org.uk/signs-of-the-times/

stpast/2015/no-59-oct/review-questions-are-the-answer

To really understand the theme, I had to let go of all my mere true beliefs and accept that I may be wrong.  Learning about the different models of wrongness helped me let go of my need to always have the right answer (Schulz, 2010).  It is completely acceptable to make errors; in fact making errors helps us develop new patterns of thinking.  As we saw in the video of Carol Dweck’s in the first post, when we take on difficult challenges we develop new and stronger neuron connections in our brains.  Dweck’s theory about the power of belief also provided insight that helped me when inquiring on the theme (Dweck, 2006).   Having a growth mindset can be a humbling experience; after all we are conditioned to believe that success is the greatest accomplishment.  

Coming to a conclusion about the theme did not come to me very easily.  I do not even know that my current understanding of the theme is resolute, and that is completely acceptable.  Originally I believed that all humans had a little good in them.  I was open to the idea that all humans fell into a grey zone, with some humans having more good than bad and others having more bad than good.  I still believe this is true.  Now, however, I see that I did not understand those that I considered to have more black in their grey zones.  I have learned that understanding and empathizing with our fellow humans is crucial to understanding why humans can behave badly.  

Helping me mold my position on the theme were the three knowledge domains, humanities, social science, and natural science.  While methods of acquiring knowledge in each domain vary, many disciplines within them can be used mutually to draw conclusions.

Amplify¬ . (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2015, from

 http://www.amplify.com/viewpoints/5-great-ways-use-technology

-arts-and-humanities

The humanities helped me understand how perspectives from authorities in the various disciplines can help me collect new knowledge.  In philosophy, we looked at the conflicting theories of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes on the nature of men.  With Locke we learned that all humans are born with their mind being a “white paper,” meaning behaviors are not innate, but rather are gained through experience (Locke, 1689). Hobbes on the other hand, believed that war-like (“bad”) behavior was innate in all men (Hobbes, 1651).  We also briefly ventured into the discipline of linguistics and discovered the power of language.  During class discussion it was clear that not everyone could agree that the use of “bad” language made a person bad.  One could say that the use of foul language can be used to hurt others, in which case it can be considered “bad.”  The argument can also be made, however, that non-foul language can also be used to elicit negative emotions.  Furthermore, “bad” language is not always used in a negative context, and may be used as a way for sub-cultures to create an anti-language that is exclusive to only them (Montgomery, 1995).  

Both examples in the disciplines of philosophy and linguistics make it clear that there is more than one way to reach a conclusion.  Thus the method of collecting knowledge through the humanities was beneficial in that it made me consider alternative ways of viewing a concept.  On the other hand, knowledge gained from the humanities seems to lean more towards mere true beliefs.  In this way, I do not feel that the humanities should be studied independently, but rather tied in with social science or natural science research.     

Urochester. (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2015, 

from http://urochester.tumblr.com/post/119698160224/

literary-ethnography-more-social-science-humor

In the knowledge domain of social science I found that I could arrive at various conclusions as to what makes humans “bad.”  In particular, I found that psychology based research was extremely interesting and beneficial to my understanding of the theme.  Likely the most important take-way I got from this domain, was that social scientists do not seek to assign blame, but rather try to asses what root causes may contribute to a problem.  For example, rather than trying to accuse parents for bully behavior in children, we need to look at all the variables that contribute to bullying (family income, race, age, parental involvement, etc.) (Avila, et al., 2012).  Research based in the social sciences does have its limitations, however.  For example, in a survey, emotions and biases of respondents can affect the results of a study.  Nevertheless, the social sciences helped me tremendously in my journey towards understanding the theme.    

Finally, the natural sciences helped me hone in on my assessment of the theme by providing “hard” evidence on the topic. Disciplines in the natural sciences have the capacity to go beyond limitations found in humanities and natural science based disciplines.  However, the natural sciences have limitations as well.  Natural sciences cannot help us answer morality questions, such as what defines good or bad behavior.  Furthermore, research in the natural sciences is still growing; there is still much to be tested when it comes to human behavior.

How Blogging Has Helped Me Arrive at My Conclusion

I was very resistant to starting a blog at the beginning of this course.  I was a prime example of Dweck’s fixed mindset—although I did not believe this at the time.  Blogging has taken me out of my comfort zone, and while I still have a lot to learn about this style of writing, I feel that I have opened myself up to having a growth mindset.  Dweck’s reference to “the power of yet,” has helped me understand that if I did not get to the right answer the first time (case in point: blog 1), it does not mean I will never get there, but rather I have not arrived yet. 

(Martinez, 2015)

Having a course long blog that could be changed and adapted as time went by was also an interesting experience.  In a paper, you get one shot to express your mere true beliefs and gather information.  In a blog, you have a chance to develop these thoughts over time and change your stance on a matter.  My thoughts when I first started this journey were very simplistic; over time I have gained new knowledge and insight that can help me determine my stance.  That being said, while my stance on what makes humans bad is much more complex now, it is not firm.  It is quite possible that as I continue my education I will gain new insight about the theme, furthering my resolve about what makes humans behave bad.   

Final Thoughts...

Teach Compassion and Empathy. (n.d.). Retrieved 

December 9, 2015, from http://the40by40.com/2013

/12/teach-compassion-and-empathy/

As I conclude my inquiry into “What Makes Humans Bad?” I leave you with an insight that I feel has made me a better person. I have a new understanding of people that are deemed bad by society’s standards.  The idea of stopping to listen to others and really understand their viewpoint was not something I always stopped to consider.  Compassion and empathy is not always the easiest route.  It is much easier to assign blame, than it is to put in effort to understand our fellow man.  The former route, however, is lazy and irresponsible; it helps perpetuate stigmas and promotes fear of the unknown. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

Some questions that came up over the course:

     1.  What does the study of our ancestors say about why we exhibit bad behaviors?  Are these traits that did not cycle out of us during evolution?

2.     While sample sizes would be miniscule, is there anything we can deduce about behaviors of feral children? How do their behaviors differ from humans that are born into “normal” societies?  Do feral children exhibit more animalistic behaviors, and does this say something about all human’s true nature?
3.     What would be a good way to approach this theme in an elementary classroom?  (With the end result being that students learn a little more compassion and empathy). 

What Makes Humans Bad? {Social Science Part II}

Humans Are Too Complex to be Classified as Good or Bad

As I get closer to drawing a conclusion about what makes humans “bad,” I am finding that the social sciences have inspired me the most to think critically.  Where humanities may provide knowledge from different perspectives, social scientists state what they know based off of quantified research.  The natural sciences also proved to be insightful, however “hard” science can have its limitations in that there is still much to be tested—especially in terms of root causes of “bad” human behavior.  For this reason, I have decided to broaden my knowledge on the theme “What Makes Humans Bad?” by analyzing further research in the social sciences.

Are We Conditioned to Believe in Good vs. Bad?

The common belief that there are good humans and bad humans is not likely something that we are born with.  There are many ways that we develop these black and white perceptions about something that is much more complex.  Disciplines in the humanities, such as film and literature, may influence people’s perceptions about “good” and “bad” people.  One would be hard pressed to find characters in a film or novel that do not represent heroes and villains.  The same can be said when reviewing major religious doctrines: God represent goodness, the devil represents evil.  Perhaps these influences are why so many people try to squeeze others into a category of good and bad.  It is also much easier to lump people into a simplistic category than to truly understand root causes of bad behavior.   Thus, in this blog I want to review what scholars in the disciplines of social science have discovered about the people we have labeled as the villains of our society. 

                                                                 

Beyond Good & Evil: Children, Media & Violent Times    

This is an informative video about the media and the conditioning of t

he masses to think in terms of good vs. evil.  Skip to 1:47-2:03 for an analysis 

of what is really happening when we categorize people as good or bad.  

Through separation and alienating of the “bad” characters, children 

see them as the “other” and are encouraged to hate this “other.”  Furthermore, 

these messages are seen as a means of polarizing the world into “good” and “bad.”

(ChallengingMedia. (2006, October 3). Beyond Good & Evil: Children, Media & Violent Times. [Video File]. 

Retrieved from https://youtu.be/CggjBd7o-PM)

Are Humans Bad to the Core?

One question that has been brought up several times during class discussions is, “are humans bad to the core, or do humans choose to exhibit bad behavior?”  Some may argue that there are a small number of humans who really are bad to the core.  The problem with this argument, however, is that there is no proof that humans are born evil.  My findings over this course have suggested that people can become evil, but this is acquired over a lifetime of bad experiences.  Rather than asserting that humans are born “bad,” evidence in the social sciences suggests that it is humans’ situations that can make them bad.  However, since all humans are in different situations, we must conclude that all humans have the potential to become bad depending on their situation.  

Children and Adults Who Murder Are Not Bad to the Core

A review of several studies concerning children and adolescents who murder revealed that there are many factors that can affect a child’s violent behavior.  In particular, individual, familial, environmental difficulties have a tremendous impact on the development of violent behavior towards others (Shumaker & Prinz, 2000).  Individual stressors that were analyzed include psychological assessments.  In several studies, a high rate of conduct disorder (CD) was found in subjects being studied.  Childhood CD when combined with ADHD was proven to be a “primary risk factor for adult psychopathic tendencies” (Shumaker & Prinz, 2000).

In the documentary Child of Rage, we learn about 6-year old Beth.  

Beth openly expresses her want to kill her family.  When asked why, Beth 

simply says she was hurt by people and no longer wants to be around others.  

Beth who was severely abused and molested as a baby, displays a lack of 

empathy and incapacity to love others.  Was Beth born bad, or did she 

become bad by circumstance? 

Magid, K. (Director). (1990). Child of rage [Motion picture]. Home Box Office.

The analysis of this review indicates that violent children are not born “bad” to the core, but rather the presence of extreme conditions can give rise to extreme behaviors.  The same can likely be said about adults who exhibit violent behaviors.  In a study conducted on male serial killers, three common personal identities were found.  The first was that they had an “inability to experience life normally due to personality or psychological problems.” (Henson & Olson, 2010) They also reasoned that their actions (killing) were beneficial to society.  Finally, they victimized themselves, blaming society and circumstance for their behavior.  Furthermore, the men were identified as “mentally unstable, emotionally stunted, sexually deviant serial killers” (Henson & Olson, 2010)  

But What if Being Bad is in Our Genetic Composition?

Are we very different from our closest living relatives?

In Bad to the Bone: Are Humans Naturally Aggressive? Agustin Fuentes 

cites Archer’s study on the roots of human aggression.  He surmises: 

“this is…evidence that chimpanzees, and their closest relatives (humans), 

are aggressive by nature. If this is true then domestic abuse, bullying,

and warfare are pretty much to be expected: it is just the way we 

are”(Fuentes, 2012).

image:(Mosbergen, D. (n.d.). Chimps May Look Cute, But Controversial New Study Says 

They're Natural-Born Killers. Retrieved December 7, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com

/2014/09/19/chimpanzee-violence-study_n_5846746.html)

A counter argument to the aforementioned ones provides further understanding about humans and bad behaviors.  This argument, proposed by John Archer, may support the theory that humans can be bad to the core.  Using approaches rooted in both the natural and social sciences—particularly evolutionary psychology—Archer analyzes the evolution of human aggression.  In The Nature of Human Aggression, Archer argues that the origins of human aggression can be found in our genetic composition.  He further argues that because aggression is a basic human characteristic, as it is with many other animals, “we should not…categorize it as abnormal or pathological behavior” (Archer, 2009).  Archer puts forth compelling evidence of the nature of man.  His argument seems to give support to Hobbes assertion that all men are born with the need to fight and create chaos (Hobbes, 1651). 

How Have My Mere True Beliefs Changed?

Image created by blog author.

(Book – people of the lie. (n.d.). Retrieved December 7, 2015, 

from http://www.justice4you.org/recom_people_of_the_lie.php)

Several months ago I asserted my mere true belief that humans are not all bad, but rather we all have a little bit of good in us.  A deeper inquiry into the theme has revealed that I may have been wrong.  Perhaps all humans are born with a genetic disposition to be aggressive.  With that, however, is also the capacity to love and have empathy for others.  Therefore, we may all be born with the ability to become aggressive, however our situation in life can still determine our outcome.     

What Makes Humans Bad? {Natural Sciences}

What Makes Liars "Bad"?

"Composition with Chemistry and
Science Symbols. ZIP Includes
Large..." Getty Images. N.p., n.d.
Web. 21 Nov. 2015.

My inquiry into the theme “What makes humans ‘bad’?” has now arrived at the analysis of the natural sciences.  Disciplines within the natural sciences can include biology, chemistry and physics, however there are many sub-branches that are also used to conduct research.  Academic studies based on natural sciences can help us understand how the laws of nature can affect human behavior.

Previous inquiries into the humanities have determined that humans perhaps are born “bad” (Hobbes), become “bad” based on life experiences (Locke), can become bad.  The social sciences have furthered my understanding that we cannot assign blame when looking at the root causes of human behavior.  Now, with natural science, I can connect these ideas to how a neurological disorder can affect human behavior.

What Research Tells Us About Pathological Liars  

A study assessing pathologicallying was discussed in one of our knowledge fairs this past week.  Lying is considered to be a “bad” behavior by most people, however this study raises the question of whether people are conscious when lying.  This study reviewed the neuropsychological correlation to pathological lying.  The subject/patient of the study was a fifty-seven year old man who had undergone drastic personality changes over three years.  His family members reported that he had become a pathological liar over a short period of time.  The frequency and extent of his lies caused him to not be able to hold on to a steady job.  Still, despite the effects his lying had on his life, he did not seem to be aware that he was lying. 

Anosognosia is also known as lack 

of awareness of illness (low insight).  

In the image above, brain scans of someone

with Anosognosia (low insight) are 

compared with brains scans of someone 

with high insight (no Anosognosia).  The 

findings revealed that people with Anosognosia

have a different pattern of blood flow in the brain.

("The Anatomical Basis of Anosognosia - 

Backgrounder - Treatment Advocacy Center." 

The Anatomical Basis of Anosognosia - 

Backgrounder - Treatment Advocacy 

Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2015.)

Why the Sudden Behavioral Change?

Researches ruled out any “history of head trauma, loss of consciousness, seizures, or previous contacts with mental health providers.”  The patient underwent a neuropsychological examination, which revealed a “pattern of behavioral alteration.”  Test results indicated that he may suffer from behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia,  which is “characterized by early and progressive changes in personality, emotional blunting and/or loss of empathy” ("Behavioral Variant FTD (bvFTD)," 2015).     

Case Study Revealed a Correlation Between Neuroscience and Human Behavior

The ultimate findings revealed that, in some cases, pathological lying may stem from a neurodegenerative disorder.  The patient had a brain that was considered physically normal.  Testing also revealed the presence of Anosognosia—characterized by a patient’s inability to recognize symptoms of a disability.    

The following video analyzes 

the science behind lying.  Skip to 4:44 

to see what studies on white matter 

and gray matter have revealed about 

pathological liars.  

Are Pathological Liars “Bad”?

Just as previous knowledge domains have done, natural science has seemed to “muddy the water” of my prior mere true beliefs about what it makes humans “bad.”  Natural science based research tells us that pathological liars are not necessarily bad people, but rather lying is a symptom of an underlying neurodegenerative disorder.  Does this mean that other behaviors that humans categorize as “bad” can be a symptom of an undiagnosed disorder?  Does greed, for example, qualify as a legitimate “bad” behavior?  Our Knowledge Fair presenter, Kevin Glenn, put it best: “Can anyone be held accountable for anything?”  It is looking like the answer to this question may be getting closer to an unequivocal “no.”

What Makes Humans Bad? {Social Sciences}

What Makes Humans Bad? {Social Sciences} 

In inquiring on the theme of “what makes humans bad” through the scope of the social sciences, I discovered that we cannot come to a conclusion about one’s action or behaviors based solely on one variable.  Over the past three class meetings, we have discussed the perception of being “bad” as it relates to mental health, bullying and the extortion of power.  

The studies that we analyzed help conceptualize how the social sciences differ from the humanities.  Knowledge acquired from the humanities can be based on a person's mere true belief, rather than fact.  This can explain why we have so many differing beliefs, for example Locke vs. Hobbes on the nature of man.  On the other hand, knowledge acquired from the social sciences can have its own shortcomings as well.  In a recent study about bullying the researchers admitted that the study had limitations (Shetgiri, et al., 2012).  For example, parents may have a biased view of their child and underestimate their capacity to be a bully.  This may cause some parents to underreport bad behaviors and, in turn, result in inaccurate data.  

"Fear of "Blaming Victims" Perpetuates
Bullying Epidemic." Psychology
Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

Probably the most important thing I learned was that knowledge based in the social sciences does not seek to assign blame.  Often times we look at the effects of bullying or mental illness and we want to find a scapegoat; it is much easier to accept a truth when we can find someone or something to blame.  As we will see, however, social science findings are usually much more ambiguous than that.  

Are Bullies Born Bad?  

I have always held the mere true belief that people who consistently torment others who are weaker than them behave this way to regain a sense of power that is lacking in their own lives.  The study on bullying helped me understand that the social sciences can help me discover unbiased answers to my questions.  When the discussion of bullies comes up, many people want to assign blame, whether it is the fault of the parents, teachers, individual, or society.  The social science approach does not look to assign blame, but rather looks at the influences that may cause one to behave a certain way. 

Bullies Are Not Bad! My Mere True Beliefs About Bullies.                                                                                                                                   

The issues relating to bullying really struck a chord with me because I, like many other kids across school campuses, was bullied as a child.  The girls at school liked to tease my “nappy” hair, and my hand-me down clothes (previously worn by my brothers).

My utterly shy disposition and bookworm demeanor did not help the situation.  I say all this not out of self-pity, but because I realized at a very early age that bullies were not bad people.  They were just kids who had a far worse home life than I did, and I was their outlet.  Their stories of growing up in La Puente as daughters of immigrants and sisters of cholos were not too different than mine.  The difference was—and I knew this even back then—that I had supportive parents who were very involved in every aspect of my life.  I also did not have to raise little brothers and sisters and I did not get daily beatings like so many of them did.  In this respect, I realized that bullies were just kids who chose to do bad things.   

Do my mere true beliefs support what the psychological studies suggest? Not exactly.  My beliefs are just that, beliefs.   The study does suggest that parents have a major influence on their children’s behaviors, however they are not necessarily the only variable in a child’s life that can contribute to bullying.   The findings revealed that ethnicity and economic background are other factors that can contribute to bully characteristics in children.  Particularly 10-12 year old African American and Hispanic children who live in low-income households have a higher risk of becoming bullies.  

"Understanding a Bully." 's Mind:The Psychology
of Bullying. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

Part of these findings reinforced my mere true belief that lack of parental involvement helps perpetuate “bad” behaviors in children.  Using those same schoolgirls as an example, I can surmise that living in poverty and being Hispanic also contributed to their behaviors.  The study does not give a hypothesis as to why children who come from low-income families, or are Hispanic or African American have higher odds of becoming bullies.  From my experiences of living in poverty, I can say that at times the future can looked pretty bleak.  I have also experienced discrimination as both a Latina and a female.  While my experiences were not everyday occurrences, they were enough to cast a shadow of self-doubt and insecurities.  Finally, being abused by parents, which reinforces the feeling that parents are always disappointed, can embitter a child.  This additional factor was not something I experienced, and may have meant the difference of me being the bullied vs. the bully. 

How Does The Prison Guard Mentality Play Into This?

"ReMix: The Zimbardo Papers." ReMix: The Zimbardo
Papers. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

One thing I would have like to explore further was the relationship between bullying and the prison guard mindset that was described in Philip Zimbardo's Stanford prison guard experiment.  Zimbardo's experiment showed that people who are given authority will use that power to to mistreat those who have relinquished their authority (in this case it is prisoners).  I see parallels here between guards and prisoners, and bullies and victims.  Bullying, which is defined as the "intentional, repeated aggression perpetrated by a more powerful person or group on a less powerful victim," may be an example of the prison guard mindset (Zimbardo, et al., 1973).  The parallels between both behaviors may warrant further research.     

Are People Who Are Mentally Ill Bad?

Prior to higher education I was one of the many who feared the mentally ill.  One of my worst nightmares was being stuck in a mental asylum and being the only sane person there.  I realize now how ignorant those fears were.  A course I took last spring on redefining disabilities helped me realize that almost everyone has some form of a disability.  For some, the handicap may be physical, for others it may be cognitive.  What I learned from this class, however, was rooted in the humanities school of thought.  The social sciences have given me a new perspective on what it means to be mentally ill.

Almost Everyone Can Have a Mental Illness! My Mere True Belief About Being Mentally Ill.

Personally, I have always thought that I am a shy person.  It did not help that everyone always demanded that I “stop being so shy!”  It was not until years into adulthood that I found out that I may have had a form of anxiety called Selective Mutism (yes I am self diagnosing, but I have heavily researched this).  Selective mutism affects children and is “characterized by a child's inability to speak and communicate effectively inselect social settings, such as school. These children are able to speak andcommunicate in settings where they are comfortable, secure, and relaxed.”  It may be possible that many other “normal” people also have a hidden mental disorder, but are either uninformed or in denial. 

How Does the Media Play a Role On Our Perceptions?

A 2006 Study showed that the pressure to produce high ratings has given media agencies free range to sensationalize stories about people with mental illnesses (Shetgiri, et al., 2012).  The frequency of these negative portrayals has created a stigma that characterizes people with a mental illness as dangerous.  Sitcoms and children’s television also add to the misrepresentation of mental illness.  According to the same study, “one in four mentally ill characters kill someone, and half are portrayed as hurting others.” (Shetgiri, et al., 2012)  During our discussion of the media’s portrayal of mental illness, the facilitators also brought to light the frequency of the use of negative synonyms for mentally ill.

Media Portrayal vs. Reality of Mental Illness

This video compilation was created by college

students.   It does a great job of highlighting 

the major differences between the media 

version of people with mental illness and the

realities of having a mental illness. 

What We Know About People With Mental Illness

Friday's discussion with clinical social worker Dayanira Blanco-Reyes, helped me gain an insider's perspective on understanding mental illness.  Blanco-Reyes holds the mere-true belief that her clients are not bad, but rather they have higher opportunities for bad behavior.  Furthermore, their illness, lack of ability to cope, and social rejection is what makes her clients bad.  

Blanco-Reyes also pointed out many misconceptions we have about people with mental illness.  We first have to realize that the spectrum of mental disorders is very wide.  We also cannot assume that when someone takes medication that they are suddenly "fixed."  Medication can have side effects and it does not always balance out hormones.  We also need to know more about a person's medical history, for example people who have hypothyroidism can be misclassified as bipolar.  

Images such as this one reinforce the over
trivialization of mental illness.  Notice the

admission that there is no scientific basis

on the results. 

"Scrapbook of Truth." Scrapbook of Truth. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 

Nov. 2015.

Blanco-Reyes left we two very strong impressions.  First, we must stop using mental illness terms so trivially.  When people make comments such as "I'm depressed" or "she's bipolar" to identify small lapses of "bad" behavior, they are generalizing something that is much more serious than moments of sadness or anger.  Second, I was made aware of the hypocrisy of our views of a "normal" human.  Blanco-Reyes said that "we are so accepting of any of our body parts breaking down except our brains."  This is something that I believe rings very true in most societies.  When someone becomes disabled we tend to pity or honor that person, yet when we realize someone has "lost their mind" we fear them.  

So...What Makes Humans Bad?

My finding over the past two weeks has helped me get closer to the answer of the question “what makes humans bad?”  I still hold on to the mere true belief that this is a question that cannot be easily answered in black or white terms.  Originally I said that I like to look for the good in people.  This is something that I think has kept me resilient over the years and I hope never changes in me.  Now, however I am starting to lean towards the mere true belief that, while humans may not be born bad, different variables in our lives can make us become bad.