SOURCE ANNOTATION THOUGHTS/CONNECTIONS

Morris, C., & Maisto, A. (2015). Understanding Psychology (Eleventh ed.). Pearson.

Part of Freud’s theories is that we have an “id” part of our personality that is almost like our medulla in our brain- what thoughts go to first, but it can be controlled by other things. This part is mainly associated with the “pleasure principle” which basically is the part of ourselves that wants to please everyone. This is something that unconsciously happens just like how our medulla acts without us thinking about it. (pg. 358)

“…people need to find consistency and stability even in the face of inconsistency and unpredictability.” (pg. 373)

“Identity formation” is an idea by Erik Erikson, a developmental psychologist and psychoanalyst, which states that there is a point in our childhood where we need to be less dependent on others and rely more on ourselves and this happens by having a sense of self. If this does not happen, we will have a problem with being dependent in the future. (pg. 332)

There is an actual gene that scientists have found that make people not be able to control emotional impulses and lack compassion for others. (pg. 333)

There has also been research that has found that experiencing trauma when we are kids can cause a brain structure to become hyperactive, elevating something that normally isn’t. This could be something like violence/aggression.

This I had to quote because that’s a big part of my paper- people just want to find a way to explain things, so they are likely to believe things that “makes sense” to them.

Maybe this is the point where we solidify our beliefs? If they are solidified then they are a part of our identity, they are ours. So we don’t question it, because we’ve convinced ourselves that they are a part of us.

This normally occurs when the prefrontal cortex becomes “…less able to control impulsive behavior.” (Amen, Stubblefield, Carmichael, & Thisted, 1996; Schmahl, Vermetten, Elzinga, & Bremmer, 2004). (pg. 334)

There are also factors like growing up in a “gun culture,” feeling neglected as a young child by family, feeling like an outcast. At a young age there are certain signs that you can look for if you are worried that someone close to you has this disorder. (pg. 334)

“Frustration-aggression theory- The theory that, under certain circumstances, people who are frustrated in their goals turn their anger away from the proper, powerful target and toward another, less powerful target that is safer to attack.” (pg. 494)

Cognitive dissonance is when we have two contradictory thoughts, which makes us uncomfortable because we want things to make sense and be clear-cut, which inevitably makes us choose sides. (pg. 499)

Cultural truisms- the beliefs we learn from our society and, therefore, accept them as our own. We are reinforced to do this by everyone in our culture.(Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2005; Maio & Olson, 1998) (pg. 502)

Asch’s Experiment on Conformity (1956) (pg. 503):

Size: Conformity increased as the group became larger until it was 4+. Then it didn’t make a

This sounds very similar to when Maiesto was talking about how Americans have “justified violence” in their movies, while other countries have unjustified violence and how that makes you feel a certain way. This probably has a huge impact on our “gun culture.” Are we primed to be violent? This also goes hand in hand with the fact that kids who are abused are the ones who are going to be the ones to abuse. So, although there may be a gene, environment has a lot to do with it. This further proves that we are influenced highly in our youth.

We should recognize that this is uncomfortable, but embrace it. Ignorance isn’t always bliss, but that is also where some people will go against me.

A lot has to do with social psychology and what some people may call “mind control.” This also is conformity. Is conformity just succumbing to the mind control? If you have cognitive dissonance, that might make you want to conform even faster.

difference. Unanimity: If one person didn’t

conform, the conformity in the group went from 35% to 25%. Just the fact that they broke away, even if you don’t agree, reduces conformity. (Walther et al., 2002).

Personal characteristics: fear of rejection- “attracted to the group, expects to interact with its members in the future, holds a position of relatively low status, and does not feel completely accepted by the group, the more that person tends to conform.”

For conformers, brain activity doesn’t change. For nonconformers, parts of the brain that are involved with emotional regulation (ex: amygdala) became very active. “…suggesting nonconformity, or the willingness to stand alone, comes at an emotional cost (Berns et al., 2005).”

I wonder what emotions this triggers. I feel that I don’t conform with a lot of my peers (at least the ones my age) and I don’t really have a feeling about it. It’s just an indifference because I’m just doing what I want to do. I wonder if this emotion is visible to others. Interesting…

Perry, M. (1998). Deindividuation. Retrieved October 18, 2015.

Social Identity Theory: when we identify with the group around us.

Deindividuation: when we lower our inhibitions and do things that we may not normally do because we don’t feel as responsible for what is happening when we are in a group.

Deindividuation is demonstrated when you are waiting for someone else to help another instead of doing it yourself.

This is the Genovese/Bystander Effect.

Deindividuation is demonstrated when there is a physical aspect involved because no one can really know exactly what you did, so you can’t be blamed.

All of these actions are something that someone wouldn’t normally do, it may even be the opposite of everything that you stand for. But it is mainly because you are following the crowd’s behavior. This is typically negative/violent behavior.

Gibney, A. (Director). (2006). The Human Behavior Experiments [Motion picture]. Fearful Symmetry Productions.

Matthew Carrington:

He was a young college man who decided to join a fraternity.

One night, the pledges were hazed by doing physical tasks and then they tried to chug a 5 gallon water jug.

Our kidneys can only handle so much water before you poison yourself.

All of the other guys in the room were intoxicated, but they were still able to see that Matthew was not moving.

Details are a bit hazy, but they left him to just sleep it off even though some of the guys thought they should help.

When they came back, they realized he wasn’t breathing, so they called an ambulance. Paramedics said that he died a long time before they got there.

Main takeaway: It wasn’t that they were immoral, it was just that they were influenced by each other’s reactions.

I think hazing in and of itself is entirely about the “group” aspect of obedience. You don’t want to be left out or singled out, so you play along. I still think it is very mysterious on how that actually works, but hazing is historical, so it’s not like it’s a new generation fad.

Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)

Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo made an experiment where he took 24 college men (volunteers) and put them into a simulated prison environment.

Each man was randomly selected to be either a guard or a prisoner and Zimbardo was the boss.

Once the “prisoners” got to the prison they were strip searched, given a number, had a chain on one foot, and were given only a dress to wear. They “guards” were given a uniform and sunglasses.

At first, the prisoners challenged authority as the guards got a bit harsher. One guard stood out as he took on a “role” of a prison guard he saw in a movie.

As things got worse, the prisoners rebelled. The guards started seeing them as dangerous, so they started using physical forces to stop them. One of those being solitary confinement.

Many prisoners had actual breakdowns and a few left.

On the fourth day, the punishments started to become sexual (very dehumanizing).

After 6 days, Zimbardo’s girlfriend came to see the experiment and she was horrified. Zimbardo was hesitant because it was a great psychological experiment. It turns out that even Zimbardo got caught up with it all.

The guard who was the main one got interviewed in the movie. To me, he seemed different just due to his explanation. I know it’s influenced by my preconceived ideas, but he seemed to lack empathy. Then we were told about a guard who was having trouble doing what they were doing. So how much of it is something that is already in us and how much of it is just our environment?

I think that it is fascinating that even the researcher got caught up in it. Not because I didn’t think it would happen, just

He realized this and put an end to it immediately.

Abu Ghraib, Iraq (2003)

American guards were told to “rough up” the Iraqi prisoners that wouldn’t cooperate. This included torture and abuse.

Additionally, they were told to “soften them up” for interrogators.

Prison guards are supposed to protect prisoners.

The guards were not even taught how to be guards.

They were told that these people were nothing more than “dogs”.

When the guards were having difficulty doing what they were doing, they were reminded that whenever a bomb would go off outside, that “unless you help us, their blood is on your hands as well,” referring to the American soldiers.

Top administration gave permission for all of this. In fact, many believe that if it weren’t for them, none of this would’ve happened.

Although political leaders said that the guards were just “a few bad apples,” the truth is that anyone would’ve done it under those circumstances, specifically that environment.

Main takeaway: The majority of people will obey the authorities no matter what. The people who are “heroes” truly are rare.

because it shows the strength of what happens in those types of situations. He wasn’t obeying anyone, he just got caught up.

We spend so much of our life disobeying the authorities. Some people drink when they are younger, we all speed at some point in our life, and just other things here and there. We all do it. Yet, when it comes to something “big,” we obey. I wonder where that line is and if our environment moves that line slightly in different situations. Does age have something to do with it? I know the next story would make you say no, but I still wonder.

Again, I just can’t believe that I could ever in a million years do that. It truly makes me wonder if I would since normal people did do such horrific things. I feel bad for them- all of them.

All of these things have to start somewhere, with the leadership. I wonder how people that are so evil get into power so easily. I know that some people who have antisocial personality disorders teach themselves to be extremely charming. It truly is amazing how good they become at it. But then at some point I feel like someone would’ve seen what was going on under his

Dr. Stanley Milgram (1962)

In his experiment, he told someone to shock someone (that they couldn’t see) if they got a question wrong.

As the intensity rose (and the participants were aware of the settings on the shock generator), they started hearing the person receiving the shock being in pain and saying worrisome things.

Milgram wanted to see how far they would actually go on the shock scale. The person receiving the shock was just a fake.

60-65% of the people went all the way to the top of the shock board.

Main takeaway: The participants had an authority to blame for their actions, so they felt less responsible.

Con Man

A con man would call places pretending to be a police officer and, when he told him to do things, they would.

Specific story: He called a McDonalds and told the manager to strip search a girl because he said that she had a weapon. Then it escalated to him having her jog in place, jumping jacks, all the way to doing sexual acts on the manager’s boyfriend. She did and no one said anything.

This man did the same thing to 70-100 other places.

Main takeaway: Anyone

leadership and stop it. For instance, we know that Hitler’s own men tried to kill him. But that was after thousands of people were already killed in the camps.

Again, I wouldn’t even participate in a study like that. I would not purposefully shock someone. Period, end of story. So were the participants already primed to be a little less empathetic than the rest of us?

This story is amazing to me. Specifically because what police officer would tell someone to do those things? Especially the jumping jacks but, really, sexual acts? Who in their right mind would hear that and think it was legitimate? But, again, it happened to so many people. So I just don’t know how that could happen. It flabbergasts me.

would’ve done the same thing. We obey authority.

Kitty Genovese (1964)

A young woman was assaulted in the middle of the night.

She was in clear view and in earshot of approximately 38 people (who apparently were aware of the noise), and none of them did anything.

Eventually someone called the police, but she bled to death before anyone got there.

This has been tested a lot and it is a fact that when you are alone and someone is in distress, you act immediately. When there are other people with you and the same thing happens, you wait to do something and look at what other people are doing.

Further proves that personal responsibility fades when you are in a group.

I’ve read many things about this because it was so long ago, how do they actually know what happened? Apparently, according to some people, people did call. But no one knew exactly what was going on until the end, they just heard screaming. So that’s all that they could report. Technically, you would be alone in your own apartment, so there would be personal responsibility there, but I could see the group aspect still having an effect.

What most of this shows me is that we are obedient not only to our authorities, but to the people around us. So, if someone told us to believe something or we hung out with people who believed certain things, we would eventually conform, especially if that is all that you know. It’s been proven too much to not be true, in my opinion. I just wonder how this mind-control happens and why it is so

powerful.

Shortsleeve, C. (2015, June 8). ISIS, Cults, and Religious Extremists: How Mind Control Really Works. Retrieved October 14, 2015.

Steven Hassan- American licensed mental health counselor

He believes that mind control has the characteristics of “instillation of phobias,” attempting to get them into the cult at a time of weakness, “regulating what people read or who they can associate with,” “not encouraging individuality or creativity,” and “make you feel guilty for being close minded” about what they believe.

BITE: Behavior control, information control, thought control, and emotional control.

He believes that cults, as opposed to groups, have a lot of deception attached to them. Specifically when they recruit, they don’t exactly tell the whole story, they twist things.

The leaders of these cults are convinced that they are correct, but they are also narcissistic and “have some antisocial characteristics.”

Mind control is on an “influence spectrum.”

“…with mind control, there is an illusion of having control over your own life.”

When it gets to the point of what people call “brainwashing,” that is mind control when force is attached to it.

When people say “us versus them” and “good versus evil,”

And yet, cults like ISIS still get people to join when what they do is everywhere and anyone can access it.

So, this applies to religion then. It seems that mind control is

that’s when it goes up on the influence spectrum because they are being close-minded.

Part of how Scientology works is because they tell you to cut ties with anyone around you who doesn’t believe in what they believe in.

Cults make you “avoid critical thinking.”

When the movie Jaws came out, a lot of people wouldn’t go into the water because a fictional movie made them believe that shark attacks are common when, in actuality, they are very rare. This is called “phobia indoctrination.” It also works for when religious people say that you will go to hell if you don’t believe in God.

There is a difference between being born into it (because that’s all you know) versus having your “identity got broken down and replaced by a cult identity.” For example, ISIS works by twisting concepts from Islam and, since Muslims are more familiar with these concepts, they are more likely to believe it versus someone who is completely unfamiliar with any of it. This gives the latter an advantage of a sort because they have a different perspective.

With not being born into it, the process of mind control “…it’s like falling in love.” However, “…you have extreme dissonance

basically how our parents raise us, which makes sense if you think about it.

How do they get you to actually do this? I feel that you must have some free will in this, but maybe it is too complex for that.

This is why places like North Korea don’t allow outside news to come in.

If things aren’t working out for you in life, you may take comfort in something new that will make your life better,

between your real identity and your cult identity.”

“Humans are vulnerable simply by being a social species.” “…we are hardwired to conform to what we perceive to be our social group.” So, if those people are our authority figure as well (specifically, parents), then we are even more likely to follow them.

Philip Zimbardo, PhD

Mind control- “The process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition, and/or behavioral outcomes. It is neither magical nor mystical, but a process that involves a set of basic social psychological principles…”

allegedly. This goes back to getting someone to join when they are vulnerable.

I think that is a perfect way of putting it. I think that’s why we can’t just say “don’t have your opinions, don’t have your groups, be open minded,” because we have to do this in a sense for society to function.

If you think about it, all of our beliefs and ideas are potentially made up by man. So are any of us correct or is this just a way for us to feel like we belong and to make friends? What if we never learned to communicate properly? Would we have beliefs at all? In psych we talked about how stories get so engrained in us that we start thinking it is true, so maybe this is what happened? All of our beliefs started out as a story?

Flores, R. (2015, March 15). CIA director on ISIS: They aren't Muslims - they're "psychopathic thugs" Retrieved October 17, 2015.

CIA director John Breenan said that “…most-many-of them are psychopathic thugs, murderers who use a religious concept and masquerade and mask themselves on that religious construct.”

He said that this is true because the majority of the Muslims out there do not believe at all what ISIS is doing.

I would like to point out that his point is not wrong, even though it is extreme. Even Al Qaeda are against ISIS. Also, why are people like young American girls joining ISIS? It’s not because they believe in Islamic practices.

Navarro, J. (2015, February 4). Psychopathy and Mass Movements.

Joe Navarro, M.A. is a 25 year veteran of the FBI, where he was a Counterintelligence Agent.

“Nothing gets attention like killing and slaughter.”

Retrieved October 17, 2015.

Psychopaths have to run it and be a majority because they have to facilitate and rub off onto others.

Eric Hoffer, moral and social philosopher

We join groups and believe those who we see ourselves in- who we identify with. It goes as far to say that psychopaths want to be with other psychopaths.

These things (referring to ISIS) give people hope. We may not see the advantage, but they can. It’s about perspective.

We identify with our parents, so that’s why we believe the things they believe in. I think that is a pretty valid argument.

Usó - Doménech, J.L., & Nescolarde - Selva, J.A. (2015). What are Belief Systems? Foundations of Science. doi:10.1007/s10699-015-9409-z

“In beliefs we live, we move and we are [...] the beliefs constitute the base of our life, the land on which we live [...] All our conduct, including the intellectual life, depends on the system of our authentic beliefs. In them [...] lies latent, as implications of whatever specifically we do or we think [...] the man, at heart, is believing or, which is equal, the deepest stratum of our life, the spirit that maintains and carries all the others, is formed by beliefs...” Ortega y Gasset

“Beliefs, reason and experience, are based upon each other.” Context is how we understand it all as a group. This is constantly changing.

“Belief systems are the stories we tell ourselves to define our personal sense of Reality.” An example is that we wouldn’t believe/use signs (I’ll use a stop sign as an example) if we didn’t have the same beliefs that our society has. This shows that we aren’t only

This is only an opinion, there is no factual evidence that backs this up- a belief about a belief.

talking about beliefs such as religious beliefs, we are also talking about something like philosophical beliefs.

Belief system characteristics:

Personal commitment Existence: The people in the

group aren’t the only ones who believe in it. There must also be people who recognize their belief system as a thing.

Cognitive congruence: This is seen in individuals of the group.

Life span: It may continue even when the founders are no longer alive.

Variance Boundaries Existence or nonexistence of

certain conceptual entities: “To insist that some entity exists implies an awareness of others who believe it does not exist.”

Representations of alternative worlds

“Good” and “Bad” concepts Materials that back up the belief.

He gives examples of propaganda for politics, folklore for cultural belief systems, or personal experience.

The content set must be open: The materials we are given, we must take into account what is relevant- how far down we are going to dig in the story.

Varying degrees of certitude

Elements of belief systems

Hope?

Values Substantive beliefs Orientation Language Perspective “Ideological Technology is the

associated beliefs and material tools providing means for the immediate or far (Utopia) goals of a belief system.”

There will always be “a battle between beliefs systems.”

I wonder which one of these are the most important to a group. Does that vary in the group?

I think they are literally talking about wars here. Which does make a lot of sense.

Galanter, M. (1989). Religious Cult Membership: A Sociobiologic Model. In Cults and new religious movements: A report of the American Psychiatric Association (1.st ed., p. 197). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Human characteristics that “greatly enhance the likelihood of mutualism”:

Cognitive bias. In-group versus out-group.

No one wants to be alone, so they join groups of people who will benefit them, even if that’s just keeping them company. That’s why we have symbols for clubs.

You identify with your group and, therefore, will conform to other things.

People’s ideas in the past:

John Locke: to be in a group, free people will “accept social constraints”

Sigmund Freud: family relationships made the structure of the group

Sociobiological perspective: we are predisposed to join groups because they are, overall, advantageous

I think groups are something important to look at because groups are formed because of common beliefs because you have to have a common interest. For example, you like to volunteer, so you join a volunteer group. Generally speaking, you do it because you believe that you should give back to your community. Most likely, everyone in that group believes the same thing you do. So then which one comes first? The group or the belief?

Shermer, M. (2011). The Believing Brain: From ghosts and gods to politics and conspiracies--how we construct beliefs and reinforce them as truths. New York: Times Books.

Belief-dependent realism is when you believe things because they make the world make sense. Steven Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow stated this in their book The Grand Design. (pg. 6)

An evolutionary perspective: “people believe weird things because of our evolved need to believe nonweird things” as a way to help us evolve even further. (pg. 62)

Popular culture is going to get people to believe more than science. The reason is because “superstition and belief in magic are millions of years old whereas science… is only a few hundred years old.” Also, it is more attractive and, therefore, people gravitate towards it. (pg. 63)

Science is also able to control their outcomes, so they are less reliable. (pg. 63)

Superstitious behavior is learned on a variable interval schedule in which your reinforcement is only going to come at random times. Then you start to associate other things with the outcome because that made it come once. B.F. Skinner made an experiment about this. It is very powerful and reveals why we play slot machines. (pg. 65)

“Superstitions are just an accidental form of learning.” (pg. 66)

There is also a fixed kind of learning where when one thing causes another, it actually changes something in our brain to make us believe a certain way. For instance, we generally are disgusted by

So do we no longer need groups?

I really like that point. It’s a strong point.

This relates to why we have prejudices/racism because not everyone in that group does “x” but every once in a while it happens, so you just put up the defense.

Another example is when the ladies were asked to smell shirts that men wore to see what type

incest because our siblings are too closely related to us genetically and that causes problems in the offspring. This has to do with our brain, not something someone once told us. (pg. 67)

This sort of fixed learning is part of the SS-IRM-FAP system. (pg. 69)

Another example is infants predisposed to think that two dots means it is a face. In fact, we are predisposed to read all of the things about a person’s face. That’s why we see faces in the clouds. (pgs. 69-70)

The area where this facial recognition happens in your brain is the temporal lobes in the fusiform gyrus. It gets even more complex than that. (pg. 70)

of man each person went for and if smell is a big factor. One of the outcomes is that when women smelled their brother’s shirts, they were disgusted by the smell. This makes us less attracted to them because, yes, smell is a big factor in whether or not we are attracted to someone.

Kanazawa, S. (2008, March 28). Why do we believe in God? II. Retrieved October 17, 2015.

Evolutionary perspective: if our ancestors were paranoid about hearing something in the woods, then they would most likely take the steps needed to become safe. If they didn’t always then, yes, they would save themselves some time, but they would also die.

These are called false positive (paranoid) or false negative (dead guy) errors.

We “overinfer personal, intentional, and animate forces behind otherwise perfectly natural phenomena.”

This is where religion comes in is because we want to have that connection. In our example it is noise danger. So, if something happens to us, we want to know why, so we attach a God to it. We are predisposed to do this

Explains the variable interval type of learning.

because we are naturally paranoid.