Swamped with your writing assignments? Take the weight off your shoulder!
Summarize three main claims made by Zaki and Mitchell Download Zaki and Mitchell.
Then compare and contrast their claims to
1) the claims you made in your discussion post about good and evil, and
2) to at least two pieces of evidence presented in chapter 11 on aggression.
This is my discussion post:
Deep down, in our hearts, is human nature more good or evil? Pick a side.
I would argue that human nature is more good than evil. This question has been argued for centuries whether or not human nature is good or evil. Good and evil are concepts that were created by society. We humans are not born directly from good or evil because we have to be taught in life by others. Some believe that we are born good, while with others, we are born evil, but we can have tendencies that can make us good. After all, we all have a conscience and therefore know right from wrong; humans are born, neither good nor evil because people must learn to be either good or bad from surrounding influences. Since we have to learn how to be good or bad from the influences around us, humans aren’t born good or evil. There are a lot of different results in the world that can influence us to be good or evil such as social media, family, friends, people on television, religion, your views on specific topics and beliefs, etc. There is considerable evidence that supports human nature good sides of the argument. There are a few different psychological theories and pieces of evidence that I would use to support this claim.
First, I would point to research on the “default mode network” (DMN) as evidence that humans are innately good. According to (Kim, 2016), the DMN is a network of brain regions active when people are not focused on the outside world and daydreaming or thinking about themselves. This network has been linked to people’s ability to empathize with others and understand their perspectives. In other words, the DMN helps us to put ourselves in other people’s shoes and to see the world from their perspective. Furthermore, it suggests that humans are innately wired to be compassionate and to care about others. Second, human nature helps donate generosity to the poorer when they are indeed financial; that is when a person helps another person even if there is no benefit to themselves. It suggests that humans are inherently motivated to help others, even if they will not get anything in return.
Describe two of the theories of aggression.
Proactive aggression: Aggressive behavior whereby harm is inflicted as a means to the desired end (also called instrumental aggression). Proactive aggression is unemotional and goal-oriented, motivated by external rewards. Proactive aggression aimed at harming someone for personal gain, attention, or even self-defense fits this definition. If the aggressor believes there is an easier way to achieve the goal, aggression will not occur. Some researchers call this type of aggression instrumental aggression. Proactive aggression in which harm is inflicted as a means to a desired end. This type of aggression is impulsive and within us, but aggression can also be learned. For example, take the social learning theory of aggression. The theory behind this is that we know to be aggressive from observing the actions of others. Therefore, we can behave calmly even when frustrated or agitated and never show aggression towards others or objects. However, once we keep someone else showing aggression towards a person or entity, we learn that behavior and ways too aggress.
Reactive aggression: Aggressive behavior where the means and the end coincide; harm is inflicted for its sake. Reactive aggression is an emotional response to someone else’s behavior perceived as threatening or intentional. Three forms of aggression:
a.) physical aggression- harming others through physical injury.
b.) verbal aggression- harming others through name-calling, cruel teasing, or threats.
c.) relational aggression- damages another’s peer relationships through exclusion, gossip, or manipulation.
One popular psychological theory of aggression is the reactive aggression theory (Myers & Twenge, 2019). Reactive aggression refers to aggressive behavior in response to the actual or perceived threat, provocation, or frustration and is usually impulsive, immediate, and directed at the perceived perpetrator. Its causes, consequences, and control. This theory tells us that when we become emotional with someone or something, and this person or thing keeps us from obtaining a goal, we become frustrated. The frustration comes from our expectation of gratification, and when we are blocked from getting the gratification, we are ready to become aggressive.
Many social psychologists believe that people are strongly motivated by a desire for cognitive consistency—a state of mind in which one’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors are compatible. For example: “If you don’t like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude.” (Kassin et al., 2021). Cognitive consistency theories seem to presuppose that people are generally logical. However, Leon Festinger (1957) turned this assumption on its head. Struck by the irrationalities of human behavior, Festinger proposed the cognitive dissonance theory (Kassin et al., 2021). A powerful motive to maintain cognitive consistency can lead to irrational, sometimes maladaptive behavior.