Tuesday, August 9, 2011

BBC News - UK riots: What turns people into looters?

 

He says looting makes "powerless people suddenly feel powerful" and that is "very intoxicating".

"The world has been turned upside down. The youngsters are used to adults in authority telling them they cannot do this or this will happen. Then they do it and nothing happens."

He says a large number of youngsters are involved in these riots because it is the school holidays and the nights are longer.

Numbers are all important in a riot and the tipping point comes when the rioters feel in control, he adds.

"You cannot riot on your own. A one-man riot is a tantrum. At some point the bigger crowds confronting the police realise that they are in control."

Psychopathic tendencies

Psychologists argue that a person loses their moral identity in a large group, and empathy and guilt - the qualities that stop us behaving like criminals - are corroded.

Continue reading the main story

A social psychologist's view

For most people looting is opportunistic. And greed is certainly a factor.

But some people approach this situation not necessarily with bad intentions. They are swept away by the crowd, for a variety of reasons highlighted by social psychologists.

One concept is called deindividuation. Normally people's behaviour is guided by their own identity and values, which tell us to not do certain things - like taking things without paying for them.

But in some situations they take on the values of the group. Our own internal values and norms become less salient.

The second idea is called emergent norm theory. Most of these people have probably not been in a riot like this one before. They are unsure of what the appropriate behaviour is.

So they look at what other people are doing. And if other people are doing this, it suggests it's normal. Or at least maybe it is something that I can get away with.

Source: Jason Nier, associate professor of psychology, Connecticut College, speaking to BBC World Service

"Morality is inversely proportional to the number of observers. When you have a large group that's relatively anonymous, you can essentially do anything you like," according to Dr James Thompson, honorary senior lecturer in psychology at University College London.

"Part of that is down to safety in numbers. There may only be 20 or 30 people who are leading the trouble but the presence of several hundred onlookers makes it far less likely they'll get caught."

He rejects the notion that some of the looters are passively going with the flow once the violence has taken place, insisting there is always a choice to be made.

Watching people getting away with it can act as a motivation for others to start looting, says psychologist Dr Lance Workman.

"Humans are the best on the planet at imitating. And we tend to imitate what is successful. If you see that people are walking out of a shop with a widescreen TV and trainers, a certain kind of person thinks why shouldn't I do that?"

Workman argues that some of those taking part may adopt an ad hoc moral code in their minds - "these rich people have things I don't have so it's only right that I take it".

But there's evidence to suggest that gang leaders tend to have psychopathic tendencies, he says.

 

“Start Quote

If you compare it to the riots in the 1980s, there's a lot more stuff you can loot easily”

End Quote Dr Paul Bagguley Sociologist

This idea of a mob mentality can be found in football hooliganism. Former Manchester United hooligan Tony O'Reilly, says there is a similarity between this week's looting and the football violence he took part in for three decades.

It boils down to the buzz, he says. "It's an excitement. You can't take away that thrill - the roar of the crowd. That sense of a group of men, something's happening."

For most, the motivation is the thrill, with the "free stuff" just a bonus. But not for the ringleaders who manipulate the mob to target high-value shops.

He recalls a rampage through Swiss Cottage in the 1980s when Manchester United fans ended up looting a jewellery store. "The mob itself wasn't looking for jewellers but a few of the bright criminals used the mob and bystanders and the mob joined in because of the buzz."

'Just thuggery'

For law-abiding citizens setting fire to a bus or stealing from a shop is simply unthinkable. But academics say socio-economic factors cannot be left out of the equation.

Dr Paul Bagguley, a sociologist at the University of Leeds, says young men are usually engaged in confrontation with the police, while looters tend to include young children and women.

"It's very likely that a lot of people stealing the stuff would not have done it before. There's a sense in these situations that the normal rules don't apply."

He says while looting occurs in most riots, it has dominated this week and they could be called the "consumer society riots".

"If you compare it to the riots in the 1980s, there's a lot more stuff you can loot easily, such as portable electronic gadgets, mobile phones and flatscreen TVs.

"For a lot of looters, it's just opportunity but it also expresses a sense of how else am I going to get a hold of these things?"

Prof Pitts says riots are complex events and cannot be explained away as "just thuggery".

They have to be seen against the backdrop of "growing discontents" about youth unemployment, education opportunities and income disparities.

He says most of the rioters are from poor estates who have no "stake in conformity", who have nothing to lose.

"They have no career to think about. They are not 'us'. They live out there on the margins, enraged, disappointed, capable of doing some awful things."

BBC News - UK riots: What turns people into looters?

Tracks of My Tears

The Tracks of My Tears

Smokey Robinson, Motown

People say I'm the life of the party
Cause I tell a joke or two
Although I might be laughing loud and hearty
Deep inside I'm blueSo take a good look at my face
You'll see my smile looks out of place
Just look closer, it's easy to trace
The tracks of my tears
I need you, need you
Since you left me if you see me with another girl
Seeming like I'm having fun
Although she may be cute she's just a substitute
'Cause you're the permanent one
Outside, I'm masquerading
Inside, my hope is fading
Just a clown, oh yeah since you put me down
My smile is my make-up I wear since my break-up with you
Chorus

Sunday, August 7, 2011

quote from WHY WE BELIEVE WHAT WE BELIEVE

Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, he also believes to be true.

-- Demosthenes (384-- 322 BC)

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

The evolution of generosity: Welcome, stranger | The Economist

 

The evolution of generosity

Welcome, stranger

The human impulse to be kind to unknown individuals is not the biological aberration it might seem

Jul 30th 2011 | from the print edition

THE extraordinary success of Homo sapiens is a result of four things: intelligence, language, an ability to manipulate objects dexterously in order to make tools, and co-operation. Over the decades the anthropological spotlight has shifted from one to another of these as the prime mover of the package, and thus the fundament of the human condition. At the moment co-operation is the most fashionable subject of investigation. In particular, why are humans so willing to collaborate with unrelated strangers, even to the point of risking being cheated by people whose characters they cannot possibly know?

Evidence from economic games played in the laboratory for real money suggests humans are both trusting of those they have no reason to expect they will ever see again, and surprisingly unwilling to cheat them—and that these phenomena are deeply ingrained in the species’s psychology. Existing theories of the evolution of trust depend either on the participants being relatives (and thus sharing genes) or on their relationship being long-term, with each keeping count to make sure the overall benefits of collaboration exceed the costs. Neither applies in the case of passing strangers, and that has led to speculation that something extraordinary, such as a need for extreme collaboration prompted by the emergence of warfare that uses weapons, has happened in recent human evolution to promote the emergence of an instinct for unconditional generosity.

Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, two doyens of the field, who work at the University of California, Santa Barbara, do not agree. They see no need for extraordinary mechanisms and the latest study to come from their group (the actual work was done by Andrew Delton and Max Krasnow, who have just published the results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) suggests they are right. It also shows the value of applying common sense to psychological analyses—but then of backing that common sense with some solid mathematical modelling.

Be seeing you

Studying human evolution directly is obviously impossible. The generation times are far too long. But it is possible to isolate features of interest and examine how they evolve in computer simulations. To this end Dr Delton and Dr Krasnow designed software agents that were able to meet up and interact in a computer’s processor.

The agents’ interactions mimicked those of economic games in the real world, though the currency was arbitrary “fitness units” rather than dollars. This meant that agents which successfully collaborated built up fitness over the period of their collaboration. Those that cheated on the first encounter got a one-off allocation of fitness, but would never be trusted in the future. Each agent had an inbuilt and heritable level of trustworthiness (ie, the likelihood that it would cheat at the first opportunity) and, in each encounter it had, it was assigned a level of likelihood (detectable by the other agent) that it would be back for further interactions.

After a certain amount of time the agents reproduced in proportion to their accumulated fitness; the old generation died, and the young took over. The process was then repeated for 10,000 generations (equivalent to about 200,000 years of human history, or the entire period for which Homo sapiens has existed), to see what level of collaboration would emerge.

The upshot was that, as the researchers predicted, generosity pays—or, rather, the cost of early selfishness is greater than the cost of trust. This is because the likelihood that an encounter will be one-off, and thus worth cheating on, is just that: a likelihood, rather than a certainty. This fact was reflected in the way the likelihood values were created in the model. They were drawn from a probability distribution, so the actual future encounter rate was only indicated, not precisely determined by them.

For most plausible sets of costs, benefits and chances of future encounters the simulation found that it pays to be trusting, even though you will sometimes be cheated. Which, if you think about it, makes perfect sense. Previous attempts to study the evolution of trust using games have been arranged to make it clear to the participants whether their encounter was a one-off, and drawn their conclusions accordingly. That, though, is hardly realistic. In the real world, although you might guess, based on the circumstances, whether or not you will meet someone again, you cannot know for sure. Moreover, in the ancient world of hunter-gatherers, limited movement meant a second encounter would be much more likely than it is in the populous, modern urban world.

No need, then, for special mechanisms to explain generosity. An open hand to the stranger makes evolutionary as well as moral sense. Except, of course, that those two senses are probably, biologically speaking, the same thing. But that would be the subject of a different article.

from the print edition | Science and Technology

The evolution of generosity: Welcome, stranger | The Economist

Monday, August 1, 2011

Opinion: Bernard Hickey says NZ needs a Norwegian or Chilean style stabilisation fund to cure our 'Dutch Disease'. Your view? | interest.co.nz

 

By Bernard Hickey

New Zealand is facing a horrible bonanza.

The Christchurch earthquake has unleashed a flood of US dollars into New Zealand that is helping to push up our currency. Estimates vary, but most think reinsurance payments from insurers in Switzerland, Bermuda and Britain will total more than US$12 billion over the next couple of years.

Statistics New Zealand has already recorded NZ$11.1 billion worth of reinsurance claims in the September and December quarters.

This may not sound a lot in the context of a NZ$180 billion a year economy, but it is enough to lift the pressure on a currency that also has to handle NZ$50 billion worth of export receipts every year.

Those export receipts are benefiting from record high commodity prices as strong demand from China and India adds to the effects of inflation-causing money printing in America and China.

America's debt crisis is further weakening the US dollar against the New Zealand dollar, which set fresh post-float highs at 88 USc this week. This is a perfect storm for the New Zealand dollar that threatens to wipe out any non-commodity exporters trying to add value.

But this is not the first time this has happened in the world and it's not something we just have to sit here and take. Other countries have thought about and planned for just such currency bonanzas to avoid a phenomenon widely referred to as the 'Dutch Disease'

This situation is named the Dutch Disease after the problems faced by the Netherlands in the 1960s after a flood of foreign currency followed its discovery of natural gas in the North Sea. The sharply rising Dutch guilder slashed jobs in its manufacturing sector, thus turning what should have been an economic positive into a negative.
  • Norway wanted to avoid the same problem when it discovered oil in the North Sea so it set up a stabilisation fund which parked the US dollars it was earning from the oil in assets held offshore. It is now worth over US$500 and owns 1% of all the world's stocks. The creation of the fund in 1990 prevented a debilitating rise in the Norwegian Krone and helped turn Norway into one of the richest countries in the world.

    Elsewhere, Chile has created its own stabilisation fund to deal with a surge of copper revenues in the wake of the Chinese boom. Chile actually used money from the fund to help it rebuild after its own earthquake.

    New Zealand needs just such a fund to park the currency bonanza arriving in the wake of the reinsurance funds surge and the commodities price shock. The creation of such a fund was discussed last month at the Treasury's Macro Forum in Wellington.

    It would be much harder for New Zealand to create such a fund than it was for Norway and Chile, where the government owns the mines and oil fields that generated the income.
    The government doesn't own Fonterra and can't confiscate the funds being transferred to New Zealand's insurers.

    But the government does need to look at some way to soften the effects of the milk price bonanza and reinsurance flood. It certainly should be trying to save for a rainy day using the proceeds from such a bonanza. Instead, it is just being spent on yet more imports and living for today.

    Meanwhile the job-creating export sectors where value is added and high wages produced are withering on the vine.

    What's the point of owning an iPad or going on holiday overseas when there aren't jobs for our young people to stay for?

    The old will just end up using their iPads and holidays to videoconference and visit their children and grandchildren living overseas.

    Poll results this week showing 1 in 5 young New Zealanders want to migrate should be a sobering message for our policymakers.

    Doing nothing is not an option in the long term.

    Otherwise we are just sleepwalking to poverty.

    We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

    We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment in the box on the right or click on the "'Register" link at the bottom of the comments. Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making these comments.

    Opinion: Bernard Hickey says NZ needs a Norwegian or Chilean style stabilisation fund to cure our 'Dutch Disease'. Your view? | interest.co.nz