My New Mere True Belief

It is the end of this blog and the question "What makes humans bad?" is still one that I cannot confidently answer. There can be many answers to this question and it is open to interpretation by anyone, that many different responses can come ones way. Yet, for the sake of this blog I will give my form of an answer. People are not innately bad, but rather they exhibit bad behavior. According to the humanities, Social Sciences, and the Natural Science's evidence in the course, people who are "bad" are not in control of their neurological conditions, social status, or traumatic events that happen to them. With that being said, I believe that humans themselves are not bad, but different conditions, situations, or events can make a human become bad.

Often we discussed about not having a fixed mindset (Dweck), that proved to be very difficult for me until the very end of this course. Even now, writing this, I am frustrated for some reason. It is probably because I am so intent on having answers to everything. Yet, I learned I have to give up my mere true beliefs, see them as wrong, and start from scratch in order to achieve something here.

In order to collect my knowledge, I began with the humanities. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes philosophies on the nature of man started our course off in an interesting way. With Locke, we understood that it was through gained experience that contribute to ones behavior. Yet, with Hobbes, he believed that everyone was born bad, that everyone has a war-like behavior. Here we talked about different issues like bad language, it being intentional to hurt or part of a sub-culture. We discussed movies like Pulp Fiction and discovered that desperation often times makes people bad. The case of Nelson Mandela was discussed, although he went against his own government, people look to him as a hero rather than a villain, and this was because of his situation, status, and his goal.

Google

Google

Moving on to the knowledge of the Social Sciences, I was able to see that there are reasons why humans may act "bad." Instead of trying to find evidence to place blame on peoples actions, the social sciences were able to find the causes of these actions. With the social sciences I learned that humans can be situationally bad. I learned that people can become bad based on the effects of different variables. I also learned that humans can become bad when they abuse power/privilege/authority (Zimbardo).

Last but not least, the Natural Sciences helped me better understand the theme and conclusions I was trying to come up because of neurological evidence. Although, these findings did not naturally answer the question of what makes humans bad, it did give good evidence as to why people do certain things, like pathological liars and violent offenders.

Through this process of blogging I had to figure out how to put down into words in this format what I am learning. I was not too keen on the idea at first, for blogging is not something I am very good at. But it has proven to be a great way to learn, for I was able to put down my initial thoughts and always go back and edit them as I continued to learn more.

To conclude this blog I want to go back to how I began. In my first post I stated that I believe humans are not bad and they are not good. Although my knowledge grew a tons throughout the process of this course, I think that I still stand my first thought and that is that humans are humans. There is no need for classification on my part for I am not a court system or the law, for in the hands of situations like that, we cannot use the justification we have been using throughout this class. In class we were always abel to justify the terrorist to its religion, the prostitute to its need, the murderer to his mental illness, the serial killer to his traumatic event. With all of this, we never said that the human was bad, we said that everything else was. This though, would not pass in a court of law, which is why I believe that although humans act out in the most horrid ways, I am not one to say they are good or bad. For they all love and have a weakness, because at the end of the day, we are all human, and those traits, unless one is a psychopath, are ones we all carry. In the future, I would like to look more into psychopaths to see how the lack of empathy and love makes them who they are. For I do not believe people are bad to the core, but as always, I could be wrong.

There's More to Being Bad

Trying to come to any conclusion of what makes humans bad has been a bit difficult. It was interesting to look at different studies that could potentially help me find an answer to this question. Looking through it through the humanities taught me that knowledge comes from many places and many different perspectives. Through the social sciences I was forced to think critically and base findings on quantitative research. Lastly, through the natural "hard" sciences I was able to see that neurological conditions could be the cause of bad behavior. The humanities and social sciences were most interesting to me because looking at life and your surroundings, there are so many different things that can shape a human being. These all result in our actions and behaviors which are then classified by society as good or bad.

Google

During the knowledge fair Cynthia Martinez presented to the class with the article "No One is Born a Serial Killer!" by Illie Magdalena Iona. During the presentation and by some further reading of the article, I learned that it is not the psychological causes that makes a human a serial killer, but the "emotional, motivational...biological factors...factors related to education, socialization, culture, and, especially, the social-economic environment the individual lives in" (Ioana, 2013). These findings tell us that those who are serial killers have had traumatic events that have left them scarred and anti-social. Yet, they have become the greatest of actors for their skill of seeming normal and their skill of fitting in is what helps them be who they really are, serial killers.

Google

For in the study "The Monster Within: How Male Serial Killers Discursively Manage Their Stigmatized Identities" we learned that serial killers were able to manage their identities by "representing a normal self to others, acknowledging barriers to normalcy, and explaining their actions as justifiable (vigilante justice)" (Henson, Olson, 2010, 352).

The third factor here is what I find most interesting. It is like the case of Dexter which I am bringing up once again. He was a serial killer as we already discussed but he was also a sort of vigilante. In a sense, his killings were in fact for the better of society. He had a code which he followed and for the most part, he followed it. The only time we saw Dexter kill just to kill, was to keep his cover. Other than that, he always made sure that the person he was going to kill, deserved to die.

Therefore, my mere true belief about human just being humans might just be too simple. For there are so many aspects of life that contribute to our behavior which ultimately determines if we are good or bad.

Natural Science Knowledge: Being Bad

The natural sciences are academic disciplines that differ from any other we have studied so far. The natural sciences studies the physical and natural world, these include the physics, chemistry, and biology. In the social sciences, we learned that they find patterns and human behavior in order to investigate and come up with conclusions. In the natural sciences study the patterns of the physical world, the biological and chemical aspects that makes up humans as the reasoning to human behavior and in the case of our class, human bad behavior. Therefore, by running different tests on the brain and nerves and reactions of people, natural scientists try to determine, if the results have to do with being bad or good.

Kevin Glenn presented to the classroom the case of a 57 year old college-educated, married man with a worsening pattern of altered behaviors. His family reported that he was constantly lying and when he was confronted about it he pretended like he did not know what had happened. The study aimed to assess the neuropsychological bases of deception in a case of pathological lying.The study discussed that it was questionable whether pathological lying was a conscious act and whether liars always had control over their lives. The lies were often unplanned and impulsive. In conclusion to the study, "the first observation of pathological lying as a symptom of a neurodegenerative disorder" describing maybe its neurocognitive bases (Poletti, 2011).

                                                                                Google
In the study "High prevalence of brain pathology in violent prisoners: a qualitative CT and MRI scan study" by Kolja Schiltz we learned that a high percentage of prison inmates sentenced due to violent crimes suffered from structural brain pathology. This was detectable by using routine cerebral imaging with CT or MRT. Therefore, the study was able to find that brain damage was more prevalent in the violent perpetrators than in the non-perpetrator controls and also more prevalent than in the non-violent perpetrators. This tells us that pathology appears to be much associated with violent offending in many prisoners. 

Now to think that the pathological liar had any controllable fault to what he was doing would make him bad. Yet, reading and learning through the natural sciences that a neurological condition was at fault for pathological liars and often times, violent offenses, allows for me to see that it is not necessarily the human that is bad, but their condition.

Google

This helped gain a better understanding of our theme of what makes humans bad because I am learning that the answer is merely not so simple. We cannot just say it is the fault of ones mental state, or something in their genes, but it can be causes of the outside world, society, the natural that can change a human being. Based on research and facts, the natural scientists conclude that things just happen, events and just another day can change a persons behavior, and that is something they may not have full control of or maybe any control of at all. Therefore, saying if they are bad or good becomes very difficult and I can say that as a Liberal Studies major, I do not have an answer to do that.

Social Science Knowledge: Being Bad

The Social Science aspect we looked at for our theme of “What makes humans bad?” allowed us to see a perspective that is different from the Humanities and our prior knowledge. The Social Sciences are academic disciplines that are concerned with the social life of humans in a group and individually. These disciplines include, history, geography, economics, political science, psychology, social studies and sociology. It is important to our theme that we look at it through the Social Science perspective because we get to see how studies that conclude in hard facts tell us so much more about human behavior. In the humanities we learned that society has an effect on human interaction, here in the Social Sciences we learned how scientists look at the facts that they gather during experiments to come up with a conclusions that’s based on evidence from the findings.

                                                                                                       Google

To help understand the class theme a bit better, we began to read articles and research papers that came up with conclusions as to why the mentally ill act a certain way, what drugs do to you, and why bullying exists. One article that stood out to me was Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison by Craig Haney, Curtis Banks and Philip Zimbardo from the Department of Psychology at Standford University. In what was supposed to be a 2 week experiment led by Philip Zimbardo, was to investigate the causes of conflict between military guards an prisoners. For the study, participles 12 guards and 12 prisoners adapted into their roles very well, so well that the 2 people quit and the experiment was terminated.  What the study found though was quite interesting. Those who are given the roles of authority and status quite easily abuse their power. In the case of the experiment, the guards enforced measures that ultimately endangered the prisoners to real psychological torture. Although many of the prisoners passively accepted the mental abuse, it become un-bearing for some.

In short, what this study taught me was that even if it’s a role that these Stanford students were playing for some quick cash, the guards took it very seriously and essentially became bullies, proving that in the cause of military guards and prisoners, it is not quite just the prisoners fault for violence, but instead, it is the faults of the guards who hold such authoritarian status, they become cruel.

When doing any sort of study or experiment it is important that scientists take into consideration many things such as race, age, gender, income, and illnesses. These and more, are important to know in a case of a study because they may have to do with a specific outcome.

Standford Prison Study - Google

"The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces." - Philip Zimbardo

In the study "Parental Characteristics Associated With Bullying Perpetration in US Children Aged 10 to 17 Years" we learned that parents are a major reason why children bully. The findings from the study suggest that the "parents perceptions of anger with their child, that their child bothers them a lot, and their child is harder to care for than other children" create higher odds of child bullying (Shetgiri, et al. 2012, 2283). In coherence with this, the study also suggested that with higher parental involvement and communication, children had lower odds of bullying. Therefore, negative interactions and home life is what shapes these children and they go on to school and environments other than their homes and model aggressiveness learned from their parents to other children.

Children Being Bullied - Google

Something the clinical social worker guest speaker said that I was able to agree with was that she does not believe humans are born bad. She stated that her clients are instead put in situations where they feel they have no other choice but to act in specific manners and do criminal activities as a result of their illness, lack of ability to cope, and constant rejection. The greatest part of her talk with us in my opinion was when she stated that people need to be nice to each other. It sounds so cliché but in fact, we do not know why people steal or kill, and certainly just talking to some of these people won’t change their outcomes, but little good deeds here and there really can go a long way. If people cared more for each other and less for just themselves, the world just might be a better place.

Therefore, having put all of this time mind, are the college students bad for taking on a role they were given? Are children who bully bad even though we know it may be the cause of their home environment? Are people with mental illness's bad even though we know it is not their fault they are sick? These are questions one cannot just answer without reasons.

What is important to remember that although the Humanities was based a lot about a person's mere true belief, like Hobbes and Locke's, knowledge from the social sciences looks to see the causes of actions. Social scientists do not seek blame their findings are referred to as more information to help understand an issue, they are not answers. 

Humanities Knowledge: Being Bad

When it comes to determining what makes humans bad it was necessary for us to discuss the philosophy’s of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.  Hobbes’ work in “Leviathan” explains that man is born bad and that it is in ones nature to be bad. On the other hand, Locke believed that man is instead born innocent, it is the experiences they encounter that determines their outcomes, making the person good or bad, because to him “man is by nature a social animal.”  Hobbes’ though believed that it was impossible for a man to exist without a government. I would like to think that I believe somewhat In both philosophies but I find myself siding more with Locke than with Hobbes. This is mainly because I do not like to think that man is in fact born bad. It makes more sense to me that is our lives, our society, and our experiences that make us either good, bad, or both.

In class we used the example of Walter White and whether or not we believed he was bad based on only two scenes from the entire series. This made it hard for the students who have not seen the show decide if he was good or bad. Based, on these scenes though, it seemed like majority of the class agreed he was good. I bring this up because I believe that he is bad. I do not believe that he is bad because like Hobbes said he was born bad, but I believe that he was bad because of his experiences and things he came to do, although his good intentions, he changed and became a different person that no one could recognize anymore.

                                                                     John Locke Image - Google

 Thomas Hobbes Image - Google

During this discussion though, another show came to my mind and that is Dexter. Dexter is a serial killer who you root for in the series. He on the other hand experienced the traumatizing murder of his mother which left him scarred and obsessed with taking lives. The catch here though is that, even though he is so un-human like, he tried his absolute best to be normal, get married and start a family. Not only that, he worked in a crime lab and helped save peoples lives. Best of all, he had a code that he would not break and that could meant that he can only kill "bad" people, people who thought they beat the system. So here we have an example of a serial killer who killed and dumped the bodies of rapists and murderers, then went home to his wife and child. 

It is interesting to note though, Dexter was not born bad, as Hobbes would suggest. Instead, there was a traumatic event in his life, witnessing the bloody murder of his mother and then sitting in her massive pool of blood for so long, as a young child, is what triggered his fascination and need for blood.  Therefore, Lockes philosophy plays a better hand here in Dexter's situation.

On the other hand, Walter White is an individual with a normal upbringing who passed up the opportunity of lifetime, to raise a family and work as a chemistry teacher. Yet, what he didn't know when he made that decision which he soon came to regret, was that he would be diagnosed with cancer. This event in his life made him realized that he had nothing to leave to his family once he passed away, causing him to hit the streets, cooking meth and eventually murdering many people. Walter White came to only think about himself, he tried his best to protect his family, and there are times when he failed. He did not feel empathy and he did not come to his senses, for when he was able to earn already so much money, it was not enough for him, instead, he kept going, digging his hole further and further. Walter White was no longer the family man with love and care, he was Heisenberg, and that to him, was more important than anything.

                                              

It’s our knowledge as a society to agree on a meaning of what is bad, sometimes it is based on intention or how you are raised. Also discussed was what constitutes as bad language and if that exemplifies a bad person. We discussed hip hop culture and euphemisms, essentially coming up with the solution that language is arbitrary and that culture, society, and context play a huge role on what is bad language and if using the bad language makes a person bad. In my opinion, it is not bad language that constitutes a person as bad, it is the intention the language has that might make them bad. By this I mean, if the language is used to intentionally hurt another human being. Other than that, I think what is bad language for one person that not make it bad language for another, therefore, coming to a meaning of bad as a society would be important in this case, yet I do not think it is possible.

My Very Own Knowledge

Being a Liberal Studies major, I have learned through my 201 and so far through my 301 class that we must think critically of all aspect in our lives in order to get through life and a teaching career with an optimistic mindset rather than a pessimistic mindset.

Google

The theme for this quarters class is “What Makes Humans Bad?” This is an open ended question that allows us to wonder what exactly knowledge is. Due to the fact that we are on this earth to discover and we are in this class to discover some more and to learn, we have made it a point to digest this knowledge and come to an understanding of the world that we live in, the good and the bad. Looking at humans as a whole in this world, I must agree that more people have a pessimistic mindset in which they fear being wrong and the desire for approval. Our consciousness is fact to us that we are aware and we have minds of our own, it is what makes us human.

To quickly get back to the theme of the class though, I must say I maybe do not fully understand the meaning of this. We are automatically assuming that people are bad without giving even ourselves the chance to be good. I do not believe that people are “bad” nor do I believe people are “good.” Instead, I like to believe that people are people. Even the bad and the criminals can love and love goes along with good. Also even the good may sin and hate therefore making them. Yet, to say that humans are bad I believe is too rash of a statement. Humans are exactly that, they are human; there are some that may be “more good” and some that may be “more bad.” Yet, I may just have it all wrong.

I believe I have an optimistic mindset on our class about knowledge, for I am open to learning, I am open to making mistakes and I am open to being wrong about my theories and ideas. With the Humanities, Social Science, and Natural Science disciplines comes an area of subjects so diverse, giving us the best opportunity to discover in the most knowledge filled way. Looking at life through one lens keeps it too narrow for growth.

Google

What opened my eyes a lot was in Chapter 4 of Consciousness A Very Short Introduction by Susan Blackmore. In this chapter my eyes were opened to the reality of our knowledge and to the extent we believe we know things. The concept of the grand illusion, believing we have a rich and detailed stream of pictures passing through our consciousness one after another (Blackmore, 61), and our perception, our ability to see, hear and be aware, of things that exist can just be all wrong. Often times we go through life only seeing what we want to see, creating so many gaps, inability to see something right before our eyes, although they are in our memories (Blackmore, 55), not noticing what may be very important to know. This is essentially how we take life, as this big grand illusion, seeing things with our own perspective and creating unconscious gaps. This makes what we think we know very faulty. For, looking only through one lens in a world we've come to perceive as something unreal with so many blindspots can justify much of what we know as humans. Shakespeare said “all the worlds a stage” implying that life is like a play with a written script that we all follow. Blackmore makes the point that life is a grand illusion theory, that we see only what we want to see. The most fascinating part of this concept was that after we see something and take in the whole thing, once we move we only remember a gist of it, forgetting the detail. Yet, the most interesting aspect of all of this is that every day we are gaining knowledge and we are also never forgetting it. For once we have knowledge, there is no losing it.

Personal Knowledge Inventory Table: