[ MUSIC ]
>> HELLO AND WELCOME
TO "TALKING POINTS".
I'M DAVE KELLY, DIRECTOR OF
ADVANCED MEDIA PRODUCTION
AT CAL STATE LONG BEACH.
TODAY WE'RE GOING TO TALK
ABOUT THE NATURE OF VIOLENCE
AND WHAT MOTIVATES
AGGRESSION IN SOCIETY.
MY GUEST TODAY IS
DOCTOR ANILA BHAGAVATULA.
DOCTOR BHAGAVATULA IS
AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY.
WELCOME ANILA, AND THANK YOU FOR
JOINING US ON "TALKING POINTS".
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> WELL AS WE BEGIN THIS
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NATURE
OF VIOLENCE, PERHAPS WE SHOULD
TURN THAT QUESTION AROUND
AND SAY, "IS VIOLENCE
IN OUR NATURE?";
IN OTHER WORDS, ARE
WE BORN WITH IT?
IS IT PART OF OUR
GENETIC MAKE UP?
IS IT IN OUR DNA?
IS IT AN EVOLUTIONARY TRAIT
BECAUSE MAYBE VIOLENCE WAS
NECESSARY IN THE STRUGGLE
FOR SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST?
OR, IS IT MORE OF A
PSYCHOLOGICAL OR EMOTIONAL NEED
FOR DOMINANCE AND CONTROL?
WHAT DO YOU THINK IT IS?
>> ON THE CONTRARY, IT'S
ACTUALLY NEITHER OF THESE.
AS FAR AS -- I'M
GOING TO ADDRESS BOTH
OF THOSE ISSUES SEPARATELY.
AS FAR AS EVOLUTION,
THE MAJORITY
OF INDIVIDUALS ARE
NOT AGGRESSIVE.
SO, WHEN WE SPEAK ABOUT THE IDEA
OF SOMETHING BEING EVOLUTIONARY,
WHAT EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGISTS
LOOK FOR IS THAT IT IS SOMETHING
THAT IS PRESENT IN THE
MAJORITY OF INDIVIDUALS.
SO, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
SOMETHING LIKE PARENTAL CARE,
WHERE AROUND THE
WORLD THE MAJORITY
OF PARENTS WILL MAKE
SACRIFICES FOR THEIR CHILDREN,
WILL GIVE UP THEIR OWN LIVES FOR
THEIR CHILDREN, THAT'S SOMETHING
WHERE WE SAY, "THIS IS
PRESENT IN SO MANY PEOPLE.";
AGGRESSION IS NOT LIKE THAT.
AGGRESSION FOR ALL THE SHEER
NUMBERS OF AGGRESSIVE ACTS
THAT WE SEE, IS NOT PRESENT IN
THE MAJORITY OF INDIVIDUALS.
SO, IN THAT SENSE IT KIND
OF OBLITERATES THE IDEA
THAT IT IS AN EVOLUTIONARY NEED,
BECAUSE IF WE SAY "SURVIVAL
OF THE FITTEST", NOT THAT MANY
PEOPLE WOULD HAVE SURVIVED
AS ARE ALIVE TODAY,
BECAUSE THE MAJORITY
OF PEOPLE ARE NOT AGGRESSIVE.
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
NEED FOR DOMINANCE,
IT IS AN INTERESTING ISSUE.
THERE IS THAT SENSE OF,
"WELL I WANT TO WIN!
I WANT SOMETHING!", BUT IT ISN'T
THAT WE ARE DOMINATING
FOR THE SAKE OF IT.
RATHER, AGGRESSION SEEMS TO BE
MORE IN A SOCIOCULTURAL SENSE
THAT IT'S COMING FROM A
COMPETITION FOR RESOURCES,
A COMPETITION FOR RESOURCES
THAT COULD BE ECONOMIC,
POLITICAL, SOCIAL.
IT COULD BE ANYTHING FROM
FIGHTING FOR THE FERTILE LAND
TO FIGHTING FOR SOCIAL STATUS.
SO, THERE IS THAT NEED
FOR DOMINANCE BUT AGAIN,
NOT DOMINANCE FOR ITS OWN
SAKE, BUT MORE IN THE SENSE
OF COMPETING FOR
MINIMAL AMOUNTS OF THINGS
THAT ARE AVAILABLE, SO.
>> SO, AS WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT WAR BEING THE ULTIMATE
EXPRESSION OF VIOLENCE
AND AGRESSION, IT DOES INVOLVE,
USUALLY, A RATIONALIZATION
FOR THE NEED FOR MORE
LAND OR MORE RESOURCES
OR MORE CONTROL POLITICALLY
OR SOCIALLY, WHAT HAVE YOU.
AND WE ALSO HAVE IDEOLOGY
ENTERING INTO THE JUSTIFICATION
FOR WAR ALONG WITH THE ECONOMIC
MOTIVATION, SOMETIMES RELIGION,
SOMETIMES PHILOSOPHY,
SOMETIMES DIFFERENCE OF SYSTEMS,
COMMUNISM VERSUS CAPITALISM,
THAT KIND OF THING.
BUT WAR INVOLVED GREAT
ORGANIZATION OF LARGE NUMBERS
OF PEOPLE, AND FOR THE
AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL THE THOUGHT
OF ACTUALLY ATTACKING OR KILLING
SOMEONE, ESPECIALLY A STRANGER
WHO WE'VE NEVER MET,
IS ABHORRENT.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT
SEEMS TO BE IN OUR NATURE.
WE WANT TO GET ALONG
FOR THE MOST PART --
>> YES!
>>...WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, AND
SO HOW DO WE MAKE THAT LEAP
FROM WANTING TO GET
ALONG WITH OUR NEIGHBORS
TO BEING ACTIVELY
ENGAGED AND INVOLVED
IN THIS ORGANIZED EFFORT
OF EXTREME VIOLENCE
KNOWN AS WARFARE?
>> THERE ARE TWO POTENTIAL
REASONS THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
CERTAINLY WAR IN
[INAUDIBLE] MODERN HISTORY HAS
SEEMED COMMON.
THERE ARE TWO REASONS THAT
WE ARE ABLE TO OVERCOME,
AS YOU SAID, THIS SOMEWHAT
NATURAL REVULSION TO MURDER.
ONE POTENTIAL REASON
IS THAT IF WE SAY,
"WELL THERE IS THIS UNIVERSAL
TABOO AGAINST MURDER.",
WHICH THERE IS, ONE POTENTIAL
REASON THAT WE ARE STILL ABLE
TO ENGAGE IN WARFARE
IS THAT OUR DESIRE
TO ACHIEVE WHATEVER THE
END GAIN IS OF THAT WAR,
THAT DESIRE IS STRONGER THAN
THE CODE THAT WE'RE BREAKING.
SO THE DESIRE FOR THAT LAND, THE
DESIRE FOR, ON A SMALLER SCALE,
PARTICULAR SOCIAL STATUS FOR
EXAMPLE, IS STRONGER THAN,
AS YOU MENTIONED, THE
UNIVERSAL TABOO AGAINST MURDER.
THAT'S ONE POTENTIAL THING;
SIMPLY THAT, YES THIS IS STRONG
BUT WE HAVE SOMETHING
ELSE THAT'S STRONGER,
THIS NEED THAT'S STRONGER.
ANOTHER POTENTIAL REASON,
AND THE MORE LIKELY REASON,
IS THAT ALTHOUGH THERE IS A
UNIVERSAL TABOO AGAINST MURDER,
MANY OF US CAN ENVISION
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES
WHERE MURDER WOULD BE
JUSTIFIED OR EVEN IMAGINABLE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE SAW
SOMEONE HARMING OUR CHILD,
OR SIMPLY IN THE ACT OF
SELF DEFENSE, WE COULD SAY,
"WELL IF SOMEONE WAS DOING
THIS TO ME, I WOULD BE ABLE
TO KILL THEM.", OK, "IF
THEY'RE POINTING A GUN AT ME,
AND I HAD A GUN, I WOULD KILL
THEM.". SO, BECAUSE WE'RE ABLE
TO IMAGINE AGGRESSION IN
THESE NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES,
THE WHOLE IDEA OF WAR
BECOMES, HOW DO YOU PUT THE WAR
IN A JUSTIFIABLE CONTEXT?
AND MANY TIMES WAR BECOMES
ABOUT THIS ACT OF SELF DEFENSE.
SO ON AN INDIVIDUAL
LEVEL, WE CAN IMAGINE
IF SOMEBODY WAS ATTACKING
ME, "OH!
I WOULD ATTACK THEM BACK!", OK,
I WOULD TRY TO SAVE
MY LIFE, YOU KNOW?
RIGHT. SO, WAR --
OFTEN JUSTIFICATION,
ESPECIALLY BY POLITICAL
LEADERS FOR EXAMPLE,
WHO ARE THE ONES
IMMOBILIZING THESE LARGE GROUPS,
AS YOU TALKED ABOUT, BECOMES
ABOUT WE NEED TO DEFEND.
WHAT ARE WE DEFENDING?
WE'RE DEFENDING OUR GOVERNMENT,
WE'RE DEFENDING OUR DEMOCRACY,
WE'RE DEFENDING OUR WAY OF LIFE,
WE'RE DEFENDING OUR IDEOLOGY.
SOMETIMES IT DOES BECOME ABOUT
WE'RE DEFENDING OUR RESOURCES,
BUT ULTIMATELY THAT STILL
BECOMES A SELF DEFENSE ISSUE.
IT'S LIKE, WELL IF THEY GET OUR
RESOURCES, WE'LL LOSE MONEY,
WE'LL LOSE FOOD, OUR
CHILDREN WILL -- YOU KNOW?
SO IT'S STILL REALLY
BECOMES ABOUT THE IDEA
THAT MURDER IS WRONG UNLESS
SOMEONE IS TRYING TO HURT YOU;
AND WAR BECOMES ABOUT, OH THIS
GROUP ALREADY IS HURTING US
OR THEY COULD POTENTIALLY
HURT US,
SO LET'S TAKE CARE
OF THIS FIRST.
SO --
>> SO IF WE LOOK AT WORLD WAR
II, THAT'S THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE
OF WHERE AMERICA ENTERED
THE WAR AS LIBERATORS,
AND IT WAS CERTAINLY JUSTIFIABLE
FOR AMERICA TO ENTER THE WAR
TO DEFEAT NAZISM OR IMPERIALISM
AND ALL THE TERRIBLE THINGS
THAT WERE GOING ON
AROUND THE WORLD.
AND, AT THE END OF THE WAR WE
ACTUALLY HELPED OUR ENEMIES;
WE HELPED REBUILD
JAPAN AND GERMANY.
AND SO, IT WASN'T PERSONAL, IF
YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT THAT WAY,
IT WAS ABOUT IDEOLOGY
AND SYSTEMS AND SO ON.
BUT OF COURSE, AS SOON
AS THAT WAR WAS OVER,
ANOTHER WAR DEVELOPED, A COLD
WAR, BETWEEN US AND THE SOVIETS.
AND SO THEN WE WERE LINING
PEOPLE UP ON OUR SIDE,
THEY WERE LINING PEOPLE UP ON
THEIR SIDE, SOMETIMES BY FORCE,
BUT NONETHELESS IT STILL WAS
A MATTER OF US VERSUS THEM.
THERE'S ALWAYS THIS
ALIGNMENT PROCESS THAT OCCURS.
SO, IF THAT IS THE CASE,
IS IT IN OUR NATURE TO WANT
TO ALIGN OURSELVES WITH
OTHERS TO CREATE ALLIANCES?
AND, IF THAT'S THE CASE,
ARE WE ALWAYS GOING
TO BE BATTLING THIS URGE
TO GO TO WAR, OR TO BATTLE,
OR TO FIGHT AGAINST THE
OTHER, IF IT'S US VERSUS THEM?
>> THERE IS A VERY
PREVALENT VIEW OF US
VERSUS THEM, WHICH
I WILL ADDRESS.
I WOULD NOT SAY THAT US
VERSUS THEM IS NATURALLY
LEADING TO WAR.
US VERSUS THEM IS KIND OF, IF --
A GENERAL ISSUE THAT IS
SEPARATE FROM AGGRESSION.
SO, I'M GOING TO DISCUSS THE US
VERSUS THEM MENTALITY IN TERMS
OF BOTH THE COGNITIVE
PERSPECTIVE
AND THE MOTIVATIONAL
PERSPECTIVE.
SO, THE COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE
OF STEREOTYPES, PREJUDICE,
AND DISCRIMINATION POINTS OUT
THAT LEAVING ASIDE INDIVIDUALS
AND GROUPS, WE CATEGORIZE
EVERYTHING.
SO, TAKING OUT ANY EMOTIONAL
VALANCE OUT OF THIS EQUATION;
WE CATEGORIZE EVERYTHING,
WE SAY WHICH FOODS ARE HOT
AND WHICH ARE COLD,
WE SAY, YOU KNOW,
WHICH COUNTRIES ARE
SMALL AND WHICH ARE BIG.
WE HAVE ALL THESE DIFFERENT
WAYS THAT WE, KIND OF,
PARCEL OUT HOW THINGS ARE.
SO WHAT THE COGNITIVE
PERSPECTIVE SAYS IS
THAT CATEGORIZING
INDIVIDUALS AS US VERSUS THEM,
SIMPLY MAKES OUR
SOCIAL LIVES EASIER;
AND SOCIAL IN THE BROAD SENSE,
NOT TO SOCIALIZE PER SE,
BUT HOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND
YOUR WORLD?
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, CATEGORIZING
YOURSELF AS A POLITICAL LIBERAL,
AND YOUR BOSS AS A
POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE,
ALLOWS YOU TO NAVIGATE
THE CONVERSATIONS BETTER.
SO THERE MIGHT BE SOME COMMENTS
THAT YOU MIGHT HOLD IN CHECK,
"I CAN'T SAY THAT IN
FRONT OF THE PERSON!";
SO WHAT THE COGNITIVE
PERSPECTIVE TELLS US IS
THAT THE US VERSUS THEM
MENTALITY IS VERY PREVALENT,
AND VERY DIFFICULT
TO OBLITERATE,
BUT WHY WOULD WE OBLITERATE IT?
BECAUSE THAT CATEGORIZATION
MAKES THINGS EASIER, OK;
JUST LIKE I SAID,
LIKE WE CATEGORIZE
SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.
NOW, THE MOTIVATION PERSPECTIVE
GOES A STEP BEYOND THAT
AND SAYS, "ANYTIME YOU PUT
THINGS INTO CATEGORIES,
YOU ARE GOING TO ATTACH A
JUDGEMENT TO WHICH IS BETTER.".
SO EVEN IF YOU SAY, WELL THESE
FOODS, THAI FOODS, INDIAN FOODS,
THEY'RE SPICY; AND
THESE FOODS ARE MILD,
GERMAN FOOD, BRITISH FOOD, OK.
SIMPLY JUST SO THAT
YOU, YOU KNOW,
CAN UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES.
THEN YOU SAY, "OH
I LIKE SPICY FOOD.
I LOVE THAI FOOD!
I LOVE INDIAN FOOD!", AND
IN -- BY THAT SAME TOKEN,
NOW WHAT THE MOTIVATION
PERSPECTIVE SAYS IS,
WHAT BEGAN REALLY, AS A WAY
TO JUST ORGANIZE OUR WORLD
INTO GROUPS, THIS IS US,
"OH I'M NOT FROM THERE.
THEY ARE.", NOW WHY IS IT CALLED
THE MOTIVATION PERSPECTIVE?
BECAUSE ONCE YOU HAVE
GROUPS OF PEOPLE.
YOU ARE MOTIVATED TO VIEW
YOUR GROUP AS BETTER,
BECAUSE IF YOU SAY
THIS GROUP IS BETTER,
BY EXTENSION YOU ARE BETTER.
SO, YOU ARE POLITICALLY LIBERAL.
YOUR BOSS IS POLITICALLY
CONSERVATIVE.
THAT HELPS CATEGORIZE
CONVERSATIONS.
BUT, NOW THAT YOU HAVE DONE
THAT, YOU FEEL LIKE, WELL,
LIBERAL PEOPLE ARE BETTER,
LET'S SAY; AND BY THINKING THAT,
YOU'RE SAYING, "WELL
I'M BETTER.",
BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS
TO SAY THERE'S THESE
MULTIPLE GROUPS,
AND THAT GROUP IS BETTER.
THEN YOU'RE TAKING A HIT
ON YOUR OWN SELF-ESTEEM.
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
LIKE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN
THAT COUNTRY IS BETTER
OR THAT RELIGION IS BETTER
OR THAT, YOU KNOW WHATEVER,
SOCIOECONOMIC STRATA IS BETTER?
I'M -- MY GROUP IS BETTER.
OH BY THE WAY, I'M IN THAT.
THAT MAKES ME BETTER AS WELL.
SO, THE ISSUE OF CAN WE
CONTROL AGGRESSION IN THE US
VERSUS THEM MENTALITY,
OR I GUESS IT WAS A TWO PART
QUESTION, CAN WE CONTROL THE US
VERSUS THEM MENTALITY AND CAN
WE CONTROL THE AGGRESSION?
WE -- IT IS VERY
DIFFICULT TO CONTROL THE US
VERSUS THEM MENTALITY
SINCE IT IS SO ENGRAINED
IN HOW WE VIEW THE WORLD AT
LARGE, ASIDE FROM PEOPLE.
BUT, THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE
FROM CONTROLLING AGGRESSION.
WE ARE NOT, AS WE TALKED
ABOUT A FEW MOMENTS AGO,
WE ARE NOT ACTUALLY
AGGRESSIVE MOST OF THE TIME,
NOR ARE THE MAJORITY
OF PEOPLE AGGRESSIVE.
SO WE CAN KEEP THAT US
VERSUS THEM MENTALITY,
AND WORK ON REDUCING
THE AGGRESSION.
>> WELL LET ME TALK ABOUT THAT
FOR A MOMENT, BECAUSE IT SEEMS
LIKE THE US VERSUS THEM CAN BE
USED IN A POSITIVE WAY AS WELL,
IN TEAMWORK FOR EXAMPLE.
>> YES.
>> FOR SPORTS, IF YOU FOLLOW A
CERTAIN TEAM, YOU WANT YOUR TEAM
TO WIN; AND THEY ALL OBVIOUSLY
HAVE TO BEAT THE OTHER TEAM
IN ORDER TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
SO THAT'S A POSITIVE OUTCOME.
ALSO, IF WE HAVE
A BUSINESS DYNAMIC
WHERE WE HAVE TWO
BUSINESSES COMPETING,
AS LONG AS THEY'RE FOLLOWING THE
RULES AND NOT BREAKING THE LAW,
BUSINESS COMPETITION
IS FAIR GAME.
I THINK WE'VE ALL DECIDED
THAT THAT'S THE CASE,
AND ALSO WE HAVE CONTESTS;
WE HAVE DECORATING CONTESTS,
WE DECORATE OR DESIGN
THE ROSE BOWL FLOAT,
AND IF OUR TEAMS WINS
ON THE ROSE BOWL FLOAT
DECORATING CONTEST,
SO MUCH FOR THE BETTER.
>> YOU FEEL A SENSE OF PRIDE!
RIGHT.
>> SO IS THAT THE BEST WAY
TO CHANNEL THAT KIND OF US
VERSUS THEM MENTALITY?
>> A COMPETITION?
>> YEAH.
>> YEAH. EXACTLY.
CHANNEL IS A GREAT WORD BECAUSE
IT IS A GREAT WAY TO CHANNEL IT.
IT IS NOT A WAY TO REDUCE IT.
IF ANYTHING, TEAM COMPETITION
ACTUALLY INCREASES THE US
VERSUS THEM MENTALITY BECAUSE
NOW YOU HAVE SOCIAL VALIDATION
FOR YOUR VIEWS.
YOU'VE FOUND A WHOLE BUNCH
OF PEOPLE THAT, LIKE YOU,
THINK YOUR GROUP
IS BETTER, RIGHT?
SO MAYBE INITIALLY YOU'RE
IN ISOLATION THINKING, "HEY!
THIS GROUP IS BETTER.", NOW
YOU KNOW, YOU JOIN A CLUB,
AND THEY'RE ALL SAYING, "YES!
OUR FRATERNITY OR OUR SORORITY
OR OUR WHATEVER, THE SKI CLUB
OR THE SAILING CLUB, WE'RE
BETTER FOR THESE REASONS.".
SO IRONICALLY EVEN THOUGH THE US
VERSUS THEM MENTALITY IS A WAY
TO CHANNEL AGGRESSION, HAVE
SOCIALLY APPROPRIATE WAYS
TO HAVE AGGRESSION; AND
IT KEEPS IT IN CHECK.
THAT, AGAIN, IS A SEPARATE ISSUE
FROM THE MENTALITY
OF US VERSUS THEM.
THAT'S ACTUALLY INCREASED
IN THIS COMPETITION,
BUT ON THE PLUS SIDE IT'S A WAY
TO HAVE SOCIALLY SANCTIONED
COMPETITION IF YOU WILL.
>> AND ON THAT NOTE, WE'VE
ACTUALLY REACHED THE POINT
WHERE WE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK.
SO WE'LL BE BACK IN A MOMENT
AND WHEN WE DO COME BACK,
WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHETHER
VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES AFFECT YOUTH
AND MAKE THEM MORE
AGGRESSIVE; AND ALSO,
WE'LL ANALYZE ROAD RAGE
AND WHAT'S BEHIND IT.
STAY TUNED.
[ MUSIC ]
>> MAKE A DIFFERENCE
IN SOMEONE'S LIFE!
TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS,
AND GUIDANCE COUNSELORS
CAN HAVE AN ENORMOUS IMPACT
ON STUDENT'S LIVES.
BE THAT PERSON!
BE THE INSPIRATION
TO EMPOWER OTHERS
TO BE THE BEST THAT THEY CAN BE!
YOU CAN BECOME A PART OF THIS
EXCITING FIELD WITH A DEGREE
FROM CAL STATE LONG BEACH.
[ MUSIC ]
>> WELCOME BACK TO
"TALKING POINTS".
I'M DAVE KELLY AND MY
GUEST TODAY IS DOCTOR
ANILA BHAGAVATLA.
ANILA, BEFORE THE BREAK WE
WERE TALKING ABOUT ORGANIZATION
OF THE US VERSUS THEM
MENTALITY AND CHANNELING IT
IN A POSITIVE WAY AND --
BUT THAT STILL INVOLVES SORT
OF A TEAM EFFORT,
OR A GROUP EFFORT,
AND COULD BE LARGE SCALE
ORGANIZATION IF WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT CORPORATE COMPETITION.
>> RIGHT.
>> LET'S GO NOW TO THE
MORE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
AND INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, AND THE
KINDS OF THINGS THAT THEY SEE
OR EXPERIENCE ON A, MORE
OR LESS, DAILY BASIS.
FORTUNATELY THIS
ISN'T A DAILY THING,
BUT WE DO WITNESS ROAD
RAGE PERIODICALLY;
AND WE CERTAINLY READ ABOUT IT
AND HEAR ABOUT IT IN THE MEDIA.
AND, ROAD RAGE IS
SOMETHING WHICH IS --
IT'S NOT AFFECTING ALL OF
US OR EVEN A MAJORITY OF US.
AGAIN, IT'S A SMALL GROUP
BUT FOR A SMALL GROUP,
LARGER THAN IT SHOULD BE,
BUT A SMALL GROUP WILL AFFECT
THIS ROAD RAGE MENTALITY
OR BEHAVIOR ON THE FREEWAY
AND IT CAN SOMETIMES HAVE
VERY DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES.
SO, WHAT IS BEHIND ROAD RAGE
AND WHERE'S IT COMING FROM?
>> WHAT IS BEHIND ROAD
RAGE IS THE SAME THING
THAT CAUSES THESE
INDIVIDUALS TO BE --
OR PREDISPOSES THEM TO BE
AGGRESSIVE, EVEN OFF THE ROAD.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RISKY
BEHAVIORS THAT THEY ENGAGE IN.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
LOW IMPULSE CONTROL.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
NARCISSISM, EGOTISM.
SO THESE ARE THE SAME THINGS
THAT THEY ARE PREVALENT
IN THEIR DAILY LIVES AS WELL.
SO, ON THE ROAD, WHAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT IS SOMEBODY
THAT HAS SMALL ACTS OF
AGGRESSION IN GENERAL,
AND NOW THEY HAVE A
WEAPON, WHICH IS THIS CAR.
SO, MY POINT IS THAT THESE
INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ENGAGING
IN ROAD RAGE ARE
THE SAME INDIVIDUALS
THAT WILL BERATE A SERVER FOR
SOME MINOR ERROR IN THEIR MEAL,
THE SAME PERSON THAT WILL, YOU
KNOW, LASH OUT AT THEIR CHILDREN
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T CLEAN THEIR
ROOM WHEN THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO.
SO, THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE
THAT HAVE ISSUES OF AGGRESSION
IN A VARIETY OF CONTEXT, AND NOW
YOU HAVE GIVEN THEM A WEAPON,
WHICH IS THEIR CAR, ESSENTIALLY.
THE OTHER THING I WAS
GOING TO SAY WITH THAT,
WITH ROAD RAGE SPECIFICALLY,
WAS --
IS THAT THERE IS A
HYPOTHESIS CALLED THE COGNITIVE
NEOASSOCIATIONISTIC VIEW, IT'S
A MOUTHFUL, BUT THE IDEA IS
THAT WE ARE ASSOCIATING
MANY THINGS WITH AGGRESSION.
SO, IF WE ARE, FOR
EXAMPLE, ALREADY FRUSTRATED,
AND WE HAVE A WEAPON
PRESENT; IT COULD BE THE CAR,
IT COULD BE THE KNIFE,
IT COULD BE A GUN,
WE'RE MORE LIKELY TO USE IT.
IN THE ABSENCE OF THE
FRUSTRATION, IT WON'T MATTER
THAT THAT WEAPON IS THERE.
IF WE ARE FRUSTRATED SIMPLY
BECAUSE WE'RE RUNNING LATE
TO WORK OR IT'S HOT, THE IDEA
OF THE COGNITIVE
NEOASSOCIATIONIST PERSPECTIVE IS
THAT WE FEEL FRUSTRATED, AND
WE'RE LOOKING IN THE ENVIRONMENT
FOR WHY WE ARE FRUSTRATED.
SO, IF SOMEBODY IS IN TRAFFIC,
AND IT'S HOT, AND THEY'RE LIKE,
"I'M RUNNING LATE TO WORK!",
AND "LOOK AT THIS PERSON
THAT IS STOPPING ME FROM
GETTING THERE ON TIME!",
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE
ATTRIBUTING THEIR FRUSTRATION
TO THIS PERSON.
SO, THAT LINK IS MADE WHERE IT
ALMOST BECOMES, IN THEIR MIND,
JUSTIFIED BECAUSE
I AM FRUSTRATED
AND WHAT IS LINKED
TO MY FRUSTRATION?
YOU ARE LINKED!
AND YOU COUPLE THAT WITH
THE PRESENCE OF A WEAPON,
AND THAT'S WHEN YOU CAN HAVE
THESE HORRIBLE INCIDENTS.
>> SO HOW DOES THIS CORRELATE
WITH ANGER MANAGEMENT AS WELL?
IS THERE A LINK BETWEEN
THIS KIND OF PHENOMENON
AND ANGER MANAGEMENT AS WELL?
>> OR LACK THEREOF BASICALLY?
>> YEAH.
>> YES! OH DEFINITELY!
UNFORTUNATELY, THE INDIVIDUALS
THAT NEED THE ANGER
MANAGEMENT THE MOST ARE THE ONES
THAT ARE LEAST LIKELY TO GO
AND TAKE IT IN THE ABSENCE
OF LOVED ONES THAT SAY, " YOU
SHOULD GO!", OR A COURT ORDER
THAT SAYS, "YOU KNOW WHAT?
YOU HAD THIS PROBLEM, YOU SHOULD
GO FOR THESE CLASSES.". SO, YES,
ANGER MANAGEMENT CLASSES
ARE GREAT, AND THERE'S A LOT
OF SELF HELP WAYS TO
DECOMPRESS AND RELAX AS WELL.
MANY THINGS OUT THERE
ACTUALLY, BIOFEEDBACK,
BUT UNFORTUNATELY A LOT OF
INDIVIDUALS THAT BECOME ANGRIER,
COMPARE TO LET'S SAY
THE GENERAL POPULATION,
DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY'RE
IN THE WRONG.
SO, THEY DON'T CONSIDER
THEMSELVES ANGRY,
THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES,
KIND OF VICTIMS
OF DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.
SO, THEY DON'T SEE THE REASON
FOR ANGER MANAGEMENT CLASSES.
THEIR POINT IS, "WELL, THE
ONLY REASON I GET ANGRY IS
BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T DO
WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO.";
I WAS ONLY ANGRY BECAUSE
THIS PERSON CUT ME OFF.
I WAS ONLY ANGRY BECAUSE
MY BOSS SAID THIS.
I WAS ONLY -- AND IT'S ALWAYS
COMING ON OTHER PEOPLE.
SO, THERE ARE A, AS I
SAID, TREMENDOUS NUMBER
OF ANGER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
THAT ARE VERY SUCCESSFUL.
SIMILAR TO, LET'S SAY,
MEDITATION TECHNIQUES
THAT ALSO ARE VERY SUCCESSFUL.
BUT, THEY'RE UNFORTUNATELY
NOT BEING USED BY THE PEOPLE
THAT NEED THEM THE MOST.
SO -- AND THAT WHOLE SENSE
OF "WHY DO I NEED THINGS
LIKE THAT?", THAT SENSE
OF NARCISSISM IS PART
OF WHY THEY BECOME ANGRY ANYWAY.
SO --
>> RIGHT, IT'S A KIND OF
NARCISSISTIC ENTITLEMENT.
>> YES! EXACTLY!
SO AS SUCH, THEY WOULDN'T
THINK, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT FEELING LIKE YOU'RE
BETTER THAN OTHER PEOPLE,
SO YOU'RE GETTING
ANGRY, THEN YOU --
BECAUSE YOU'RE BLAMING THEM,
YOU DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO WORK
ON YOURSELF ANYWAY, SO.
>> ALRIGHT, WELL LET'S
TALK ABOUT VIDEO GAMES --
>> OK.
>> ...AND MEDIA AND THE
POTENTIAL TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE
THROUGH THE EXPOSURE TO
THESE VIOLENT IMAGES.
AS FAR AS VIOLENT VIDEO
GAMES, AND CHILDREN OR YOUTH
OR TEENAGERS PLAYING
VIOLET VIDEO GAMES,
IS THERE ANY INDICATION
THAT THESE VIOLENT VIDEO
GAMES ACTUALLY CAUSE YOUTH
TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE?
SOME STUDIES WOULD SUGGEST
YES, OTHER STUDIES SAY,
WELL NOT REALLY BECAUSE,
YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST KIND
OF A CATHARTIC RELEASE
OF TENSION.
AND SOME OF THESE VIDEO GAMES,
EVEN IF THEY'RE VERY VIOLENT.
INVOLVE TEAMWORK, AND SO YOU
ACTUALLY HAVE THE TEAMWORK
ASPECT OF TEENAGERS
WORKING TOGETHER
TO DEFEAT THE ENEMY
OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
AND ALSO, THE IDEA THAT
BASICALLY STATISTICS SHOW
THAT VIOLENT CRIME BY
YOUTHS, JUVENILE DELINQUENTS,
HAS ACTUALLY GONE DOWN
IN THE LAST 20 YEARS,
WHEN AT THE SAME TIME VIDEO
GAME SALES HAVE SKYROCKETED.
SO, THERE SEEMS TO NOT BE A LINK
BETWEEN SALES OF VIDEO GAMES
AND INCREASES IN CRIME
AND VIOLENCE BY JUVENILES.
SO, THE QUESTION IS, COULD
ACTUALLY BOTH THINGS BE TRUE?
THAT THE EXPOSURE TO THESE
VIOLENT IMAGES DESENSITIZES
PEOPLE AND ALSO CAUSES
THEM TO BE LACKADAISICAL
WHEN THEY INCIDENTS OF
VIOLENCE, OR NOT CONCERNED,
OR LACK EMPATHY, BUT IT
DOESN'T ACTUALLY CAUSE THEM
TO BECOME MORE AGGRESSIVE.
>> THAT IS ACTUALLY
VERY POSSIBLE.
AND IN FACT, WHAT WE DO SEE IS
A MARKED DECREASE IN EMPATHY
IN CHILDREN AND ADULTS
WHO ARE REPEATEDLY EXPOSED
TO VIOLENT IMAGES.
SO -- AND WHERE WE DEFINE
EMPATHY AS THE ABILITY
TO TAKE SOMEONE ELSE'S
PERSPECTIVE,
TO SEE THINGS FROM THEIR VIEW.
SO, EMPATHY IS DECREASED, EVEN
IN THOSE WHO ARE NON-AGGRESSIVE.
SO, THAT'S ONCE -- WE TALKED
ABOUT DESENSITIZATION,
THAT'S CERTAINLY A CONCERN.
ALSO, I WANT TO DIFFERENTIATE
BETWEEN THE QUESTION OF,
"IS THERE A LINK BETWEEN VIOLENT
VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION?",
VERSUS "IS ONE CAUSING THE
OTHER?"; SO, WE DO SEE A LINK
IN THAT WE SEE SIMPLE
CORRELATIONS
THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE
PLAYING MORE VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES
DO EXHIBIT MORE VERBAL
AND PHYSICAL AGGRESSION,
BUT THE KEY IS THAT WE CANNOT
MAKE A CAUSAL CLAIM OF --
THE MAIN REASON WE CAN'T
MAKE A CAUSAL CLAIM IS
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT
CONTROLLING ANY OTHER VARIABLE
IN THIS PERSON'S LIFE,
ANY OTHER FACTORS.
SO AS A SIMPLE EXAMPLE,
IF WE TALK ABOUT CHILDREN
WHO PLAY VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES
ARE -- WE SEE MANY STUDIES,
AS YOU SAID, MANY STUDIES THAT
SHOW THEM TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE,
BUT THERE COULD BE OTHER FACTORS
THAT ARE CAUSING
BOTH THE PLAYING
OF THE VIDEO GAMES
AND THE AGGRESSION.
FOR EXAMPLE, CHILDREN
WHO ARE NOT SUPERVISED.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE AT HOME
ALONE A LOT OF THE TIME.
THEY'RE PLAYING THESE GAMES
THAT, IF AN ADULT WERE HOME,
THEY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED
TO PLAY, LET'S SAY.
SO THEY'RE PLAYING THESE VIDEO
GAMES, THAT'S ONE FACTOR.
SEPARATELY, THEY COULD BE
EXPERIENCING A LOT OF DISTRESS
OR FRUSTRATION OR ANGER
BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS ARE NOT
AROUND MUCH, SO THAT COULD
LEAD THEM TO BE AGGRESSIVE.
SO THEN YOU HAVE A CHILD WHOSE
PLAYING THESE VIDEO GAMES
THAT ARE VIOLENT AND
ALSO IS AGGRESSIVE
BUT THE GAMES ARE NOT
CAUSING THE AGGRESSION,
THE THIRD VARIABLE OF THESE
PARENTS NOT BEING PRESENT,
NOT BEING ABLE TO TEACH
NORMATIVE BEHAVIOR,
IS SOMEHOW AFFECTING
BOTH OF THESE VARIABLES.
SO, THERE IS A LINK BETWEEN
AGGRESSION AND VIDEO GAMES,
WE KNOW THAT, BUT ALL WE CAN SAY
IS THAT IT'S A MEASURED LINK,
NOT NECESSARILY A CAUSAL LINK.
>> OK, AND IF WE TALK
ABOUT ACTUAL VIOLENCE
THAT CHILDREN MAY EXPERIENCE.
UNFORTUNATELY, MANY
OF THEM MAY SEE IT
IN THE HOME WITH THEIR PARENTS.
AND WE KNOW A LOT THESE
DAYS ABOUT WOMEN'S SHELTERS
FOR ABUSED WOMEN, AND HOW
WE HAVE TO KEEP THE MEN
THAT ARE VIOLENT AWAY FROM
THE WOMEN AND THE CHILDREN
THAT THEY MAY BE ABUSING.
AND SO, WITH MEN THAT ARE
VIOLENT AND ABUSE THEIR WIVES,
THEIR SPOUSES, OR GIRLFRIENDS,
WHAT IS BEHIND THAT?
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE, SORT OF
I GUESS, CONSISTENT THREADS
THAT WE SEE WITH VIOLENT MEN
WHO ARE ABUSING THEIR SPOUSES?
>> A HIGHLY CONSISTENT
THREAD IS THAT MOST
OF THESE MEN EXHIBIT WHAT
PSYCHOLOGISTS CALL THE DARK
TRIAD, AND THE DARK TRIAD
ARE THESE THREE TRAITS
OF PSYCHOPATHY,
MACHIAVELLIANISM,
AND NARCISSISM.
SO, BREAKING THAT
FURTHER INTO TRAITS
LIKE MANIPULATION,
DECEPTION, EGOTISM.
SO, THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE
TEND TO SEE IN THESE ABUSERS,
STUFF IN EXTREMELY
CONSISTENT THREAD.
>> OK, AND WE'RE ACTUALLY
STARTING TO RUN OUT OF TIME --
>> OK.
>> ... BELIEVE IT OR NOT,
SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO PROBABLY MAKE OUR
ANSWERS A LITTLE BRIEF HERE.
BUT I JUST WANT TO GO
THROUGH A COUPLE OF THINGS.
THERE WAS A STUDY CALLED
THE PARTNER ABUSE STATE
OF KNOWLEDGE PROJECT, WHERE THEY
TOOK 1,700 STUDIES ACCUMULATED
OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, LOOKING
IN AT THE PARTNER
ABUSE SITUATION,
WHICH IS INTIMATE PARTNERS.
AND, THERE WERE SOME
INTERESTING FINDINGS FROM THIS,
WE FOUND OUT THAT
ABOUT 25 PERCENT
OF PEOPLE HAVE EXPERIENCED
PARTNER ABUSE IN RELATIONSHIPS,
AND IT ALSO GOES BOTH WAYS;
MEN ABUSE THEIR PARTNERS,
AS WE'VE JUST BEEN TALKING
ABOUT, BUT ALSO WOMEN HAVE WAYS
OF STRIKING OUT AS WELL.
TYPICALLY WHEN THE WOMEN ARE THE
PERPETRATORS OF THE VIOLENCE,
IT'S LESS SEVERE, IT DOESN'T
CAUSE SIGNIFICANT INJURY.
IT MIGHT INVOLVE PUSHING
OR SHOVING AND SLAPPING
AND THAT KIND OF THING.
NONETHELESS, IT'S
KIND OF TROUBLING.
WHY ARE PEOPLE ENGAGING
IN PARTNER ABUSE?
WHAT IS THE MOTIVATING
FACTOR BEHIND THAT KIND
OF INTIMATE PARTNER ABUSE
THAT WE'VE BEEN READING
ABOUT IN THE STUDY?
>> SO, FIRST OF ALL
THE DARK TRIAD
THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT,
SO IF WE'RE BREAKING THOSE --
AND THEN THERE'S SOMETHING
ELSE THAT I WANTED TO DISCUSS
AS WELL IN THIS CONTEXT.
BUT FIRST OF ALL, GOING BACK
TO THE DARK TRIAD IDEA,
THAT'S A BIG THING.
SO, AS FAR AS WHY ARE THEY --
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
OBVIOUSLY THE TWO SIDES OF IT,
LIKE WHY IS ONE PERSON
ENGAGING IN IT?
WHY IS THE OTHER PERSON THERE?
OK. SO THE PERSON THAT'S
ENGAGING IN IT IS LIKELY
TO BE NARCISSISTIC, FOR EXAMPLE,
TO HAVE LOW IMPULSE CONTROL.
THESE ARE PEOPLE WITH HISTORIES
OF VIOLENCE, FOR EXAMPLE,
EITHER VERBAL OR PHYSICAL.
SO, IT'S STARTING -- YOU
KNOW, IT, THOSE ARE JUST WORDS
TO SAY WELL THESE ARE
THEIR TRAITS, RIGHT?
BUT, BEYOND THAT, YOU'RE ASKING
WHY WOULD SOMEBODY BE STAYING
IN THIS?
OR THE RATES OF IT.
SO, THEN LET ME ANSWER THAT,
AND THEN ALSO A THIRD ISSUE
THAT I WANT TO DISCUSS
THAT'S MORE SOCIO-CULTURAL.
>> WE'RE DOWN TO
ABOUT A MINUTE NOW.
>> OK.
>> SO, ALSO, SO LET'S TALK
ABOUT THE POSITIVE SIDE,
THE FACT THAT 75 PERCENT
OF RELATIONSHIPS
DON'T INVOLVE ABUSE.
SO MAYBE WE CAN TIE THOSE TWO
TOGETHER IN THE NEXT MINUTE.
>> YES.
>> THOSE THAT ARE ENGAGING IN
IT, AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT,
THE ONES, 75 PERCENT
THAT ARE NOT ENGAGING,
WHAT ARE THEY DOING RIGHT?
>> THE 75 PERCENT THAT
ARE NOT ENGAGING IN IT,
THEY'RE DOING FOUR
THINGS CORRECTLY.
THEY ARE NOT OVERLY
CRITICAL OF THEIR PARTNERS,
THEY DO NOT HOLD THEIR
PARTNERS IN CONTEMPT,
THEY FEEL LIKE THEY WERE
THE ONES WHO WERE LUCKY,
THROUGH DECADES WE SEE
LONG TERM RELATIONSHIPS
WHERE THEY SAY, "I
FELT SO LUCKY!
I'M STILL FEELING LIKE WOW,
WHAT ARE THEY DOING WITH ME?",
AND THEN FINALLY, AND VERY
SIMPLY, THEY ARE MAKING TIME
FOR FUN, THE KIND OF FUN THINGS
THAT EARLY ON IN RELATIONSHIPS,
IN THE EARLY STAGES
OF DATING PEOPLE DO,
THE SPONTANEITY,
THINGS LIKE THAT.
THEY FIND THE TIME TO DO
THAT, WELL INTO MIDDLE AGE,
WELL INTO RAISING CHILDREN, SO.
>> SO IT SEEMS BEING
NON-CRITICAL IS A BIG FACTOR,
AND NOT BLAMING THE OTHER.
>> YES, PARTICULARLY
JOHN GOTTMAN STUDIES SHOW
THAT CONTEMPT EXPRESSED BY WOMEN
TOWARDS THEIR HUSBAND IS A HIGH
PREDICTOR OF DIVORCE.
HE CALLS IT ONE OF
THE FOUR HORSEMAN
OF THE APOCALYPSE,
ACTUALLY, YEAH.
SO, HE HAS THREE OTHER
PREDICTORS OF DIVORCE
AS WELL, SO THAT'S WHY.
YEAH.
>> ALRIGHT SO, WE'LL
END ON A POSITIVE NOTE -
>> OK.
>> ... 75 PERCENT
OF RELATIONSHIPS DO NOT INVOLVE
ABUSE, AND THAT'S A GOOD THING.
AND, WE JUST NEED TO
ENCOURAGE THOSE THAT ARE NOT
IN THAT CATEGORY TO
MOVE INTO THAT CATEGORY.
>> EXACTLY, YES.
>> OK, AND ON THAT NOTE WE WILL
BRING A CLOSE TO THE PROGRAM.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH!
>> AND THANK YOU FOR
JOINING US FOR THIS EDITION
OF "TALKING POINTS"; JOIN US
AGAIN SOON FOR THE NEXT EPISODE.
UNTIL THEN, I'M DAVE KELLY.
HAVE A NICE DAY!
[ MUSIC ]
