“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” Jiddu KrishnamurtiOn August 28th 1963, Martin Luther King took centre stage in Washington D.C and delivered one of the finest speeches in recorded history to 250,000 people- 250,000 people willing to listen to the voice of a minority, a voice that challenged the archaic racial view embedded in the masses. One year later President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. The opinion-deviant majority alter-cast or minority influence principle (Moscovici, Lage & Naffrechoux, 1969) accounts for some of history’s defining moments and proposes that if the minority is consistent, confident and committed in their judgement they become effective communicators (Moscovici, 1976). To give a more contemporary example, take Russell Brand- Dave Grohl and Jesus Christ’s cockney, comedian lovechild recently appeared on Newsnight and in the space of 10 minutes delivered one of the most well-articulated, slightly verbose accounts of bullshit ever presented on national television. However, the critical factors of consistency, confidence and commitment in his own argument managed to transform the generic largely politically unconcerned Facebook statuses of the British youth from the tedium of hangover updates and circling reviews to those of fierce aspiring revolutionaries. The point is whether you’re a hippy, conservative, liberal, homosexual, terrorist, freedom fighter, average Joe, anarchist, Pope, white, black, clinically insane, partisan, Christian, Muslim, pagan, masochist, peasant, president, romantic, ladies, gentleman it does not matter, if you have enough belief in an idea you can change the world.Moscovici (1976) demonstrated the effect of minority influence in one of the classic psychological studies. In the control condition a group of up to 6 naïve participants viewed a series of slides depicting various shades of blue. After being shown a slide participants were in turn required to say out loud the colour they had just seen before moving on to the next one. Under such conditions near much everyone identified the slides as being blue meaning the colour of the slide was deemed relatively unambiguous. In two experimental conditions a numerical minority (2/6) of the group were confederates of the experimenter and gave pre-agreed responses (Martin & Hewstone, 2012). Similarly to the control condition when presented with the series of blue slides participants were in turn asked to say aloud the colour they perceived. Confederates responded first and identified the depicted colour as ‘green’, an interpretation which clearly differed to that of the naïve participants. In the ‘consistent-minority condition’ confederates answered with the incorrect ‘green’ response on every trial and those in the ‘inconsistent-minority condition’ deliberately responded incorrectly on 2/3 of all trials.
Figure 1: a bar chart demonstrating the percentage of green responses by naïve participants in each condition.Results reported that the presence of a minority that consistently provided unusual responses influenced the judgments made by naive participants in that 32% of the consistent-minority condition conformed to the confederate response at least once and as can be deduced from figure 1 18% of all responses in this condition were green . However, the inconsistent minority had virtually no influence over the majority whatsoever, which supports Moscovici et al.’s (1969) claim that consistency is one the keys to minority influence. In summary either we need to confiscate Russell Brand’s thesaurus or wait until he inevitably begins to make contradictory statements before we switch off when he says something he didn’t intend to be a joke- power to the people. Rory MacLeodReferences Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2012). Minority influence: Revisiting Moscovici’s blue-green afterimage studies. In J. R. Smith, & S. Alexander-Haslam (Eds.), Social psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (pp. 91-106). London, England: Sage Publications. Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a colour perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365–379.Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press.
The evolutionary advantages of aggressive behaviour
The boy was just fourteen and he had blood smeared all over the front of his school uniform shirt. He had beaten up a classmate who had bled from his nose. An eerie silence filled the scene as the badly beaten boy was helped to the washroom by some other students who’d been witnessing the fight.Jim glanced at the blood on his shirt, half-proud and half-sad at what he had done.Advantages of aggressionMany people have this rosy idea that nature is a peaceful garden buzzing with flora and fauna living in harmony with each other and that man, if he’s uncorrupted by evil, will return to his true nature of divine love that imbues all life.Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is, violence is everywhere in nature. Every nook and cranny of the earth are filled with critters tumbling and turning over each other, killing and devouring each other in their struggle for existence and reproduction.From the Venus flytrap flapping its leaves to trap an unsuspecting insect to a cheetah chasing down and hunting a deer, violence is the name of the game when it comes to nature.Humans are no different. A cursory reading of history will tell you that the amount of violence that humans have engaged in brings what you see on Discovery and National Geographic to shame.The reason why the psychological mechanisms of violence and aggression are prevalent in nature is because they have important evolutionary advantages… Getting resourcesAfter that fight, everyone in the school feared Jim. When he asked favours from his classmates, they rarely denied. He bullied his classmates into giving him their lunch, money, and belongings.Resources are keys to survival and reproduction. Humans acquire resources through work, stealing, trickery or aggression. This is why, when you open any history textbook, all you read about is conquests, invasions, and battles.Since gaining resources boost the chance of their reproductive success, males are especially driven to seek and acquire resources.DefenceJim’s aggressive nature deterred potential attackers who could have gone after what he had. Since no one could bully him, he was able to guard his own resources. He formed a gang with a bunch of other boys to ensure that nobody could overpower them.When you obtain resources, the next important step is to ensure that you don’t lose them to your competitors. Violence and aggression over resources have been the primary source of conflict between family members, spouses, and even nations. Individuals and groups of people that are able to guard their resources are more likely to survive and reproduce. Intrasexual competitionJim, thanks to his evolutionarily advantageous traits, received attention from a lot of girls. He and his gang engaged in a lot of fights over girls. If any gang member liked a girl, then an outsider who hit on that girl was threatened and thrashed. To increase the chances of one’s own reproductive success, intra-sexual competition has to be reduced. By developing a reputation for aggressive behaviour, a male is less likely to face competition from other males for females.Status and power hierarchyEver since Jim had that fight, he was not only feared but also respected and admired. He had attained a high status among his peers. Many of his classmates looked up to him and wanted to be like him. They copied his hairstyle, manner of speaking and walking.Human males, like male chimpanzees, form coalitions to achieve dominance and power. The more aggressive the members of an alliance, the more dominant they’re likely to be.Watch how these male chimpanzees reject a young male who tries join them in order to raise its status… Men, right from their teenage years, are sensitive to any changes in power hierarchy in their societies. In teenage, they talk about the fights that broke out in the school playground and who thrashed whom and, as adults, they actively talk about politics and how one country invaded the other.Aggressors have always been admired by males because the trait of aggressiveness is evolutionarily advantageous for males. Sports are another way by which people, especially men, gauge who’s the most powerful amongst them.Just as early hunter-gatherer societies admired men who risked their lives and went on dangerous hunting expeditions, modern societies admire and reward the ‘brave soldiers’ and ‘competitive sportsmen’ with medals and trophies. The more direct the physical aggression in a sport, the more admired the sportsperson is. For example, boxing and wrestling champions are more admired than Tennis champions. This is the reason why men are so passionate about sports. They identify themselves with their favorite sportsmen and see them as role models. Any character, fictional or real, who’s dominant and aggressive is admired by men. Real examples would include characters like Alexander, Ghengis Khan and Hannibal while fictional would include the “heroes” in superhero and action movies that are disproportionately viewed by more men than women.
How To Spot A Lying Politician
The first Presidential Debate starts TONIGHT but can you tell anything about politicians’ accuracy by analyzing how they speak? A new analysis finds that lying politicians tend to be more verbose.
For more on politics and deception, take a look at these past blog posts:
Politics and Deception (Part 1)
Politics and Deception (Part 2)
Politics and Deception (Part 3)
Politics and Deception (Final Post)
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- …
- 558
- Next Page »