"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.”
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.
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.
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 hashelped
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.
My
understanding of the humanities has evolved into something much larger than I
ever gave it credit for. I used to think that people who study humanity
disciples, such as philosophy, had it all figured out. Little did I know
that my pursuit for knowledge in the humanities would leave feeling so
perplexed.
There have
been many who claim to know what makes humans bad. Two of the most
prominent modern philosophers—"modern" in comparison to
Sophocles—Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, held strong beliefs about the nature of
man. According to Locke, all men are born without innate principles, but
rather as “white paper” or tabula rasa (Locke, 1689). By
this, Locke was saying that human were not born with “bad” tendencies, but were
shaped by experiences which would lead them towards becoming a “good” or “bad”
human being. In contrast, Hobbes believed that all men had war-like
tendencies and were programmed to fight (Hobbes, 1651). In order to keep
peace and order, Hobbes believed that men needed one man or a group of men to
hold authority over all others.
I have a
problem with both Locke’s and Hobbes’ assertions. First, the idea that
all humans are a blank slate when they are born is questionable. If we
all agree that we are born as a blank slate, are we not also saying then that
humans are born without a soul? Furthermore, there are many other angles
we can analyze this perspective from; biology, psychology, and sociology may
also disprove this theory. I have a harder time disputing Hobbes theories
(perhaps I am not as optimistic as I initially thought I was?). It is hard
to argue that men are not violent in nature, when humanity’s history is wrought
in war and violence. The problem with Hobbes’ perspective is that it does
not explain the many human anomalies. We cannot say all humans are bad
when we have had “good” people such as Anne Frank, Gandhi, Mother Theresa,
Martin Luther King Jr. and so many more.
The
conflicting opinions of Locke and Hobbes—can we call them propositions when
they contradict each other?—lead me to my current understanding of the
humanities: the ability to look at humanity with a skeptical mind, to
constantly ask questions, and know that there may never be a definitive
answer. (More on this perspective here). Thus,
I have come to the conclusion that I am absolutely certain that I am uncertain
whether humans are born “bad” or “good.” Thanks a lot for bursting
my bubble, Hobbesand Locke!
In light
of my mere true belief that all humans are born good, I can surmise that Locke
may have agreed with my opinion of why people become bad. This
leads me to the age-old theme in storytelling: Man vs. Himself. We see
this theme again and again TV shows such as Dexter, Hannibal, Bates Motel and
Breaking Bad. Protagonists, such as the ones on these shows captivate
audiences into rooting for the bad guy. In fact, their characters are so
complex that they make us question if they were ever bad to begin with.
Walter White,
the protagonist on Breaking Bad, was by all definitions a “good” guy. He “breaks” bad after his
terminal cancer diagnosis, in other words, when he realizes he has nothing left
to lose. Hobbes fans might say “doesn’t that mean that Walter was bad to
begin with, and he only reverted to his true nature of ‘badness’ once he realized
his place in society was fleeting?” And perhaps this is correct. I
believe that Mr. White was born “good”; circumstance is what finally broke
him. In all his years of being a doormat, Mr. White was left in the dust,
while his peers went on to live successful lives. Thus, when he got the
cancer diagnosis, he decided to take control of his life, and in doing so
became consumed with power. In the end, he even admits to Skyler that he
did it (became Heisenberg) for himself.
Does this scene give evidence that Hobbes was
right about
the nature of man? Does Walter's
confession that he broke bad for
himself mean he was born bad? Or does it
reinstate Locke's
argument that our experiences mold who
we become? Perhaps Walter
realized that
leading a "good" life led to an unexceptional life.
To get an
understanding of how studies in different knowledge domains impart knowledge, I
will be participating in a six-part blog series for the next ten weeks.The purpose of each post is to measure if
some types of knowledge are more significant than others.The knowledge domains I will be focusing on
are the humanities, social and natural sciences.I will be applying my understanding of these
knowledge domains to the theme, “What makes humans bad?”By the end of the blog series I hope to have
a better understanding of what it means to be a “bad” human.
Why “Bad”?
The question, “What makes humans bad?” may
sound odd at first.Shouldn’t we be
asking, “What makes humans good?”After all, in a world that’s full of so much
hatred and violence, it makes sense to question how people can still be
good.Questioning the “bad” in humans,
however, seems to be asking a deeper question.The implication is that all
humans are bad, but is this true?I hope
to find out.
What is Knowledge?
To better
understand the theme, I will be analyzing the theories of knowledge—also known
as epistemology—and reviewing different methods of obtaining knowledge.I have learned that there are two types of
knowledge: propositional and ability knowledge.Propositions knowledge is a proposition that is asserted in a sentence
to claim something is true.Ability
knowledge deals with the type of knowledge that is gained through experience,
or know-how (Prichard, 2013).In Duncan
Prichard’s “What is knowledge?” readers further find out knowledge can be
broken down even further.If I were to
say that there is a rainbow outside, and by sheer luck there actually was a
rainbow, would that mean I have some type of weird rainbow knowledge or would
it be merely true?Similarly, if I were
to really believe that leprechauns exist, so much so that I somehow knew this to be true, would I be
correct?The answer to both questions is
no.One cannot gain knowledge by chance
or by only believing; instead, we call this mere
true belief.It is likely that
nearly everyone has held a mere true belief at one point in his or her
lifetime.
What if My Mere True Beliefs Are
Wrong???
Through the
process of blogging I will likely make several errors and will have to adapt to
an optimistic model of wrongness.
According to Kathryn Schulz a person that exhibits an optimistic model of
wrongness welcomes mistakes and eventually, through discovery, arrives at an
answer.A pessimistic model of error, on the other hand, does not welcome
errors or failure.By having a
pessimistic model of error, I can deprive myself from gaining knowledge
(Schulz, 2011).
To get the
most out of this experience I should also remember to have a growth mindset.When someone has a growth mindset, it
means that they are willing to continue learning, despite not understanding the
content (Dweck, 2006).One must be able
to come out of his or her comfort zone and explore new ideas.In the following video, Carol Dweck discusses
“the power of yet.”She argues that
instead of looking at a situation as a failure, we should look it as “not
yet.”By this, she means that just
because you did not succeed the first time, does not mean you will never
succeed.She also gives further insight
on what it means to have fixed (not being
comfortable embracing a challenge) and growth mindsets.At 5:02 Dweck discusses the benefits having a
growth mindset can have on the brain:
What I
Currently Know About What Makes Humans “Bad”
The notion
that all humans are bad strikes me as highly pessimistic. As someone who
tries to see the good in any situation, my perspective has always leaned
more towards the idea that everyone has a little good in them. While
I pride myself in being optimistic, I can see that humanity cannot be viewed in
these black and white terms. What I once held to be true may actually be a mere true belief; I
have no evidence that humans are good to their core, rather than bad. Perhaps,
human characteristics, such as good and evil, fall under a "grey
zone."
The morals
that we value also play a role on our "goodness" or
"badness." Judging other's morality has commonly been the way
humans have gauged the character of others. The problem with this,
however, is that every individual person has a different perspective on what is
morally right or wrong. My opinion of what qualifies someone as
being a bad human, for example, may be very different from the opinions of my
protestant neighbor or my atheist brother. Another way to look at it is
to think of this age-old question: is it morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread
if it is intended to feed your family? This question has been
debated in many college campuses for some time, and while I do not claim to
know the answer, it may show us that there is not one true measure of
“badness.”
I do not know
if I can answer the question “what makes humans bad?” I am not sure that
this question is intended to be answered, but rather to open our minds to the
possibility that humanity cannot be defined as good or bad. I believe
that we posses these traits—along with others—to different degrees. Human
morality may be similar to the ying and yang: we have both good and bad in us,
however some of us possess more or less of either.
