Although there does seem validity in personality profiling or evaluation for some people, some actions, some situations, or just sometimes - sociological or environmental factors may overtake the individual approach or need consideration as playing a potentially significant part.
That's a sweeping statement which I'll draw in a little by mentioning a book 'Profiling the Criminal Mind: Behavioral Science & Criminal Investigative Analysis' by Dr Robert J Girod Sr. It is an introductory book outlining main themes and theories about profiling and investigation of crime from the author's experience, also mentioning the work of many others with wide-ranging views, experience and expertise.
Several chapters mention the kind of situation that people are in, such as groups they belong to where the 'group cause' could be a motivating factor in criminal or other activity. Some of the subtitles from the CONTENTS list are:
Gang motivated murder
Criminal competition homicide
Group cause homicide:
Cult murder
Extremist murder
Group excitement murder
Peer/group pressure
Group retaliation
Child/adolescent pornography
Historical child/adolescent sex rings
Multidimensional sex rings
Group cause sexual assault
The Nature of Cults:
Attributes
Attitudes
Characteristics
What are Cults
The list continues and some aspects clearly may also come under individual behaviour.
Another useful book is 'Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool' by Ronald M. Holmes & Stephen T. Holmes. There are many more, some quite expensive and some intended more for academics or for those working in the field.
My point (lest you think I wander or wonder aimlessly) is I am strongly inclined to think that sadistic, violent or extreme behaviours are probably things that most people are capable of, especially when under extreme stress or in extreme circumstances. That includes the company we keep, or are somehow inveigled into keeping.
In other words I suggest almost a continuum of behaviour, the extremity of which is shocking but where other factors can sometimes render the shock factor insufficient to prevent our involvement, willing or unwilling, witting or unwitting.
Those extreme behaviours could therefore be like an extension of 'normal people's normal behaviour'.
That is some sobering thought. Maybe I got it all wrong ...
But then I came across John Sweeney's book 'Purple Homicide: Fear and loathing on Knutsford Heath' where in the Epilogue he outlines some theories of cult behaviour and extremes such as suicide by members of a group or cult:
Page 260:
"Ashley Grossman is Professor of Neuro-endocrinology at Bart's Hospital in London. He saw a comparison between those who build and reinforce a system of lies and mass suicide cults. 'All of us from time to time tell lies. If the lie is outside the structure, then we can handle that. But if we construct a house around that lie, with eaves and guttering and drainpipes, then we are in trouble. There is a psychological theory that is called cognitive dissonance, which implies that everything must be reasonably congruent. So there comes a certain stage where you start living in that house because there isn't too much else outside. Then even the most reasonably balanced person will find it quite difficult to distinguish between truth and non-truth. They do literally live that lie and it becomes part of their self-structure. It will be hard then to say that someone is deliberately lying because, by that stage, the lie becomes self-reinforcing. The power of the lie is enhanced if there is a folie a deux, if two people are in on the lie together. At its most extreme, the lie can lead to a mass suicide, like the Heaven's Gate suicides..... Within the structure it was congruent, it made sense, they understood it, everybody said the same thing. It was the rest of the world that was living the lie.' "
. . . . .
Does that explain why some couples or families have an elaborate system of reinforcing each other's statements and beliefs, in the face of just about everything going on around them? I've often wondered when keeping my ears open on trains & buses. No doubt I am no different when push comes to shove.
Returning to a book mentioned in another article here, 'More Scams from the Great Beyond: How to make even more money off of creationism, evolution, environmentalism, fringe politics, weird science, the occult and other strange beliefs' Peter Huston:
He comments on various hoaxers or what some people call 'true believers' and comes up with some interesting ideas about dynamics. In particular he writes of rather earnest campaigners that there can be in some fields - any field really. Maybe a lot of us are basically rebels seeking a cause or something 'meaningful' to work on with other people.
In Chapter 4 on the subject of 'Environmentalism' Huston takes the mick out of the seriousness with which some people take the issues, and I'm not saying that should be an object of fun. But there's many a true word spoken in jest, as the saying goes, and he illustrates it with this on p.86 under a title of 'Canvassing' he writes:
'Choose one particular issue and declare it your cause of the day... Next get a group of well-meaning, idealistic people together... one way is to run a newspaper classified ad... 'Save the Environment' etc... The key elements are an appeal to idealism, greed, and people with lack of experience.
'Collect these well-meaning, idealistic people. Keep them in one place together for a period of time. This serves several psychological purposes. First they will enjoy one another's company and form a group of some sort. Second they will reinforce each other's willingness to do the humiliating and morally questionable work that comes later.'
. . . . .
I was fortunate to attend a talk by an author on cults, hypnosis, brainwashing and so on, who was not afraid to mince words, many of which were above my head. But something stuck in my mind and was worth the visit. He used the term 'deployable agents' to describe what some people turn, or get turned, into. In his context of cults and influence (My note: I feel it could be a group or workplace situation) he suggested that the 'deal is done' when the individual can be relied on to act on the cult philosophy without now being watched or told what to do.
Some companies openly use the words 'company indoctrination' and there's an increasing trend towards teamwork, building a group-mind, de-individualising the individual, 'you can't do enough for a good firm', 'we need 100 per cent of you' and so on. Hang on, if they get 100 percent, what's left for the individual? We are naturally affected by people we are in contact with, and perhaps the influence is benign or most of it disappears over a period of time.
Perhaps it sometimes works in favour of individuals, a group-mind or team-spirit which can be nourishing too and which they can draw from. Some suggest that we need to mix with a variety of other people to stay sane and healthy. However I guess one man's meat is another's poison so one can't generalise.
So long as no-one is manipulating a group for their own purposes, perhaps there is no need to worry too much, and there could actually be benefits to others involved. I think unease about cults in general comes in when, to the person outside looking in, there seems an agenda which only a few at the top layer know of or can do anything about, and is detrimental to the members.
Somewhere I read that people like Charles Manson were like an orchestrator or conductor of the personalities of people in his group, so that they were effectively acting out the roles of his subpersonalities or dissociations like in a DID system.
Dr William Sargant wrote on the phenomenon of conversion to religion or way of thought, and suggested it occurred a lot easier if there was high excitation of an area in the brain. In a TV interview some years ago he joked that he would not wish to attend a particular ritual or event as he 'did not want to get converted'.
Does this have relevance for large crowds, rallies, congregations, pop concerts, or even some individual or small-group practices like meditation or ritual? Can we change our own psychological reality? Can reality really get changed, or does how we perceive things change? Can someone else change us against our inclination? How would they benefit? Would we!
If about half of us have a 'religious gene' and half not, where does that leave half of us? any of us? all of us? 'in real terms'?
Will there always be some split in belief or perception which divides us humans into camps, as if somehow we have to seek differentiation? Maybe this is where the 'hissing & splitting' comes in, mentioned by Speakofthedevil in his Blog.
If someone goes in for meditation, or has a feverish illness and senses things differently, do they actually become different? If tragedy knocks harshly on your door, are you necessarily the same person afterwards? I feel we can get changed by things, sometimes so that there is no 'going back' completely. The speaker on cults and 'deployable agents' mentioned above, suggested a need to accept that people may not be able to go right back as they were before joining.
Before closing, a note about a public lecture that was held at the London School of Economics on 'Why is it Always 'Us' and 'Them': on the natural history of thinking through groups' by Professor Lawrence Hirschfeld. I couldn't make it to the lecture so looked his name up and with luck and a fair wind this Link will take you to some information on his work. The LSE holds free public lectures in term-time, see www.lse.ac.uk/events
Over to you - What do you think?
. . . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment