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.