It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How Human Violence Stacks Up Against Other Killer Animals
Humans get some of their knack for killing each other from the primate family tree, a new study says...
The research was based on the theory of phylogenetics and the study of the evolutionary relationships and shared traits between related species. The closer the studied species were, the more similar their murder rates were, concluded the study. Scientists analyzed more than one thousand previous studies that referred to over one thousand different mammal species. They particularly investigated causes of death. Then, the researchers compared the number of fatalities related to murder. A superorder of species known as Euarchontogilires has a murder rate of about eleven killings per 1,000 deaths. Rodents, hares, and early humans are part of this order. The Euarchonta group, which includes primates, flying lemurs, and humans have a rate of twenty-three killings per 1,000 deaths. For great apes, the rate is eighteen killings per 1,000 death.
The Evolutionary Basis of Self-Deception ]
Despite its widespread occurrence, self-deception is classified as a form of psychopathology. Because self-deception regularly generates false beliefs, this figures prominently among the motivations for designating self-deception as a form of pathology or malfunction. I argue that this is a poor reason to classify self-deception as a form of psychopathology. From an evolutionary, Darwinian point of view, we are not justified in concluding that self-deception is pathological. In particular, we are not justified in concluding that the cognitive processes of self-deceivers are malfunctioning. Despite a long philosophical tradition to the contrary, I conclude that self-deception may be indicative of a normally functioning, evolved human mind.
We should not be so quick as to conclude that everyday forms of false belief generation, such as self-deception, are pathological. I claim that self-deception may be characteristic of a normally functioning, evolved human mind. As such, self-deception should be understood as an adaptive cognitive strategy grounded in the evolutionary, biological, and psychological development of normal human beings. While some cases of self-deception are obviously maladaptive (much like some false beliefs are maladaptive on some scale), self-deception can be viewed as an adaptive strategy with empirical support found in evolutionary biology and neurophysiology. In the end, I want to suggest that a little self-deception goes a long way, evolutionarily speaking.
Natural selection could care less whether or not we have true beliefs – what matters is that we get our bodies out of harm’s way, find food, and reproduce (and even then, if we die off, Mother Nature probably won’t even notice). We can accomplish these tasks without a set of beliefs that’s entirely true. In fact, we could probably do better with some false beliefs. As Mele (2005) states, “On many topics, a bit of self-overestimation is harmless and even useful. One potential effect of your overestimating your congeniality is your being more outgoing than you would otherwise be, making more friends, and having a better time socially.”
Petty tyranny (or petty authority or petty power) is authority exercised by a leader, usually one unchosen by the led, in a relatively limited or an intimate environment, such as that exercised by a fellow peer of a social group. It is a pejorative term, that carries with it a sense of authority that was gained, or is used, in an unfair or capricious manner. Ashforth discussed potentially destructive sides of leadership and identified petty tyrants, i.e. leaders who exercise a tyrannical style of management, resulting in a climate of fear in the workplace.
Pecking order or peck order is the colloquial term for a hierarchical system of social organisation. ...The original use of pecking order referred to the expression of dominance in chickens. Dominance in chickens is asserted by various behaviours, including pecking, which was used by Schjelderup-Ebbe as a measure of dominance and leadership order. In his 1924 German-language article, he noted that "defense and aggression in the hen is accomplished with the beak". This emphasis on pecking led many subsequent studies on fowl behaviour to use it as a primary observation, however, it has been noted that roosters tend to leap and use their claws in conflicts.
The term dominance hierarchy is often used for this type of social organisation in other animals. Pecking order is a basic concept in social stratification and social hierarchy that has its counterparts in other animal species, including humans, although the term "pecking order" is often used synonymously.
Kiss Up Kick Down
Kiss up kick down (or kiss up, kick down) is a neologism used to describe the situation where middle level employees in an organization are polite and flattering to superiors but abusive to subordinates. It is believed to have originated in the US, with the first documented use having occurred in 1993. The concept can be applied to any social interaction where one person believes they have power over another person or believes that another person has power over them.
The workplace bully is often expert at knowing how to work the system. They can spout all the current management buzzwords about supportive management but basically use it as a cover. By keeping their abusive behavior hidden, any charges made by individuals about his or her bullying will always come down to your word against the bully's. They may have a kiss up kick down personality, wherein they are always highly cooperative, respectful, and caring when talking to upper management but the opposite when it comes to their relationship with those whom they supervise. Bullies tend to ingratiate themselves to their bosses while intimidating subordinates. The bully may be socially popular with others in management, including those who will determine the bully's fate. Often, a workplace bully will have mastered kiss up kick down tactics that hide their abusive side from superiors who review their performance.
Rankism is "abusive, discriminatory, or exploitative behavior towards people because of their rank in a particular hierarchy". Rank-based abuse underlies many other phenomena such as bullying, racism, hazing, ageism, sexism, and homophobia.
Rankism can take many forms, including:
*exploiting one's position within a hierarchy to secure unwarranted advantages and benefits (e.g. massive corporate bonuses);
*abusing a position of power (e.g., abusive parent or priest, corrupt CEO, bully boss, prisoner abuse);
*using rank as a shield to get away with insulting or humiliating others with impunity;
*using rank to maintain a position of power long after it can be justified;
*exporting the rank achieved in one sphere of activity to claim superior value as a person;
*exploiting rank that is illegitimately acquired or held (as in situations resting on specious distinctions of social rank, such as racism, sexism, or classism).
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/us/california-horseback-beating-settlement/]Man gets huge settlement after televised police beating]
Earlier this month, deputies in San Bernardino County tried to serve a warrant on Francis Pusok related to an identity theft investigation. But Pusok fled the police, first leading them on a car chase. He ditched the car and fled on foot. Then, according to the sherrif's office, he stole a horse and rode off on rugged and steep dirt trails.
What happened next was troubling to many, including San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon. A video shot from a KNBC helicopter hovering above the arrest captured the scene. KNBC reported that Pusok appeared to be kicked 17 times, punched dozens of times and hit by a baton as well.
Transportation Security Administration
TSA agents are also accused of having mistreated passengers, and having sexually harassed passengers, having used invasive screening procedures, including touching the genitals, including those of children, removing nipple rings with pliers, having searched passengers or their belongings for items other than weapons or explosives, and having stolen from passengers. The TSA fired 28 agents and suspended 15 others after an investigation determined they failed to scan checked baggage for explosives. ...A 2013 GAO report showed a 26% increase in misconduct among TSA employees between 2010 and 2012, from 2,691 cases to 3,408. Another GAO report said that there is no evidence that the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) behavioral detection program, with an annual budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, is effective.
Airport Body Scanners Have Been Used to Rate (and Berate) Your Junk
Former TSA screener Rolando Negrin would probably beg to differ. While undergoing body scanner training at a Miami facility, his co-workers noticed on the screen that Negrin was packing a petite pecker. Naturally, Negrin's colleagues hounded him about this for months, withering his penis to an insecure husk and demonstrating the stalwart professionalism with which every airport patron is likely treated. Negrin, ill-equipped to dick-whip his assailants into contrition, cornered one of his co-workers in the airport parking lot, whipped out an extendable police baton, and proceeded to beat an apology out of his harasser. In doing so, he landed himself a stint in jail and guaranteed that any person confronting the probing eyes and hands of airport security would be examined in a dignified manner.
Or not. According to ex-TSA agent Jason Harrington (and every fiber of common sense in your exposed body), body scanners are much more effective for mercilessly ridiculing passengers from behind closed doors than they are for spotting terrorists. Plastic explosives were apparently indistinguishable from fat rolls, leaving screeners with little more to do than make a sport out of laughing at overweight passengers and guessing the sex of ambiguously shaped bodies passing through scans. And when they aren't laughing their asses off at man boobs and crotchular irregularities, screeners racially profile your genitals in the name of ... national security, or, as Harrington explained, "All the old, crass stereotypes about race and genitalia size thrived on our secure government radio channels." Which makes us feel markedly insecure. In our pants.
The Abu Ghraib Effect
The line between punishment and torture can be razor-thin—yet the entire world agreed that it was definitively crossed at Abu Ghraib. Or perhaps not. George W. Bush won a second term in office only months after the Abu Ghraib scandal was uncovered, and only the lowest-ranking U.S. soldiers involved in the scandal have been prosecuted. Where was the public outcry? Stephen Eisenman offers here an unsettling explanation that exposes our darkest inclinations in the face of all-too-human brutality.
Eisenman characterizes Americans’ willful dismissal of the images as “the Abu Ghraib effect,” rooted in the ways that the images of tortured Abu Ghraib prisoners tapped into a reactionary sentiment of imperialist self-justification and power. The complex elements in the images fit the “pathos formula,” he argues, an enduring artistic motif in which victims are depicted as taking pleasure in their own extreme pain. Meanwhile, the explicitly sexual nature of the Abu Ghraib tortures allowed Americans to rationalize the deeds away as voluntary pleasure acts by the prisoners—a delusional reaction, but, The Abu Ghraib Effect reveals, one with historical precedence. From Greek sculptures to Goya paintings, Eisenman deftly connects such works and their disturbing pathos motif to the Abu Ghraib images.
Skillfully weaving together visual theory, history, philosophy, and current events, Eisenman peels back the political obfuscation to probe the Abu Ghraib images themselves, contending that Americans can only begin to grapple with the ramifications of torture when the moral detachment of the “Abu Ghraib effect” breaks down and the familiar is revealed to be horribly unfamiliar.
Eisenman characterizes Americans’ willful dismissal of the images as “the Abu Ghraib effect,” rooted in the ways that the images of tortured Abu Ghraib prisoners tapped into a reactionary sentiment of imperialist self-justification and power. The complex elements in the images fit the “pathos formula,” he argues, an enduring artistic motif in which victims are depicted as taking pleasure in their own extreme pain. Meanwhile, the explicitly sexual nature of the Abu Ghraib tortures allowed Americans to rationalize the deeds away as voluntary pleasure acts by the prisoners—a delusional reaction,
originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
As CS Lewis puts it, the kinder we are to another person, the more we like them.. conversely, the crueler we are, the more we hate (I found this to be a bit counter-intuitive, at least to me- I always thought the more we hate the crueler we were but to think that action precedes thought is quite interesting.)
Interesting thread nonetheless.