Evil

During my research on evil people doing evil things I came across chilling stories about multiple murders by Richard Kuklinski. This mob related contract killer took over 100 lives by himself. He used anything and everything to kill people from knives to a remote control car with a bomb strapped to it. He planned his murders and didn't get caught until he was in his 50s. There are documentaries online that show interviews with Kuklinski in which he describes different murders. He shows no remorse while discussing his old lifestyle.

Kuklinski had a wife and kids and never made them suspicious at all. In one of the documentaries I watched a detective described becoming close to Kuklinski during an undercover mission. The detective, acting as a contract killer himself, would meet with Kuklinski and discuss different ways to kill people. The detective told of one meeting where Kuklinski shared a method of murder and laughed about it. The detective said he knew right then that he was talking to the devil.

I never came across any psychological studies of Richard Kuklinski, but all those that came in contact with him in the documentary claim he is a normal person with no disorders or history of substance abuse. In his situation he killed for money, so was he evil? 

B.E. Aggressive?

I played sports growing up, and, just like many of us, I had influential coaches throughout my childhood. The most influential coach I ever learned under was the head coach of my high school football team. An old fashioned "country boy," my coach taught football players to play aggressively. He thoroughly enjoyed watching his players hit other players at full speed, and if any hits resulted in unconsciousness, well...bonus! There were multiple instances in practice when our team failed to display the effort he expected, and punishment for laziness was one-on-one hitting drills. This involved one player doing everything he could to put the other player on the ground. Unless a person has been put in this sort of position, the mind-state of attempting to do physical damage to another person to prove worth is unexplainable. 

When my turn came during these drills I had no choice but to be aggressive. Adrenaline completely took over, and aggression was the only thing that allowed survival. If I went into this type of drill thinking, "I really don't feel like doing this," I got my world rocked. It only took one time of thinking that way, Freshman year, before I quickly adapted and forced myself to think aggressively. Now, these drills took place on the field when players were equipped with protective gear, so injury was rare. However, there were times during my football career where players had to display aggression off the field. Multiple wrestling matches and boxing matches took place behind closed doors during which we were trained like fighters to have no fear and to realize it's attack or be attacked. A favorite hypothetical question of our coaches was "What hurts worse, receiving a hit or delivering the hit?" 

We were taught to face obstacles as the aggressor. Day after day, practice after practice, drill after drill aggression was our way of thinking, so much so that it carried over into my life off the field. I found myself more confrontational and more ready and willing to fight, whether it be verbally or physically. To this day my quick adrenaline response and aggressive switch has never really slowed. However, my knowledge and consideration of consequences (after a few brawls and close legal calls) has grown, so I now think an extra second before I engage in aggressive behavior. 

I say all that to ask this. Can aggression be taught? And if so, do sports, despite all their beneficial roles in kids' lives (time management, teamwork, social acceptance, etc.) play a negative role by teaching kids to think aggressively? Food for thought.

Social Networking

According to the Huffington Post, Google is struggling to catch up on the social networking aspect of the internet. Its Orkut service has been around, but in the U.S. it flies under the radar. In 2008 Google launched a program called Lively in an attempt to compete with Second Life, but it no longer exists. Buzz is Google's current attempt at social networking but has not taken off either. My question is, why is Google, the largest and most used force online, unable to tap into the social networking market?

The article made me think about society's priorities, at least seen through online user statistics. I think Facebook simply has a choke hold on the game. It destroyed Myspace and has way more users than Twitter. Then there are blogs. Sites like Wordpress, Blogger and Tumblr supply users with easy ways to share ideas, but Facebook still dominates. If society is moving in a internet based direction, with TV, music and movies already widely available, what does is say when the most popular way to communicate online involves Like buttons and Poke options. 

Shouldn't there be just as many users of news sites as there are of Facebook? 

Yale Under Fire

According to the US Department of Education's office for civil rights, the university is under federal investigation for "it's failure to eliminate a hostile sexual environment." Late last year, frat boys with Delta Kappa Epsilon made pledges stand around a freshman dorm and chant things such as "No means yes! Yes means anal!"  Administrators have also taken shots for failing to address an annual grading of female student attractiveness known as the "pre-season scouting report."

Sixteen students complained alleging that the university essentially ignored incidents of harassment, resulting in the denial of equal opportunity. According to these students, frats also held up a sign outside a women's center which read, "We love Yale sluts." There have also been claims of students being force-fed alcohol and sexually assaulted at an off-campus party, after which several students had to be hospitalized.

Ladies and gentlemen, our nation's brightest. These students publicly participated in events that can only be deemed as completely irresponsible and immature. However, as a studier of social psych, I think about the situation the students were in at the time of the events. They were surrounded by peers doing the same thing while higher ups in the frats judged. Diffusion of responsibility must have taken place for these book smart people to act so incredibly stupid. I am by no means sticking up for these guys, and if my sister or any close friends had been subject to this sort of harassment...well, I'll stop there.

Drugs And Planes

According to the Huffington Post, a British couple on their way to London were caught with over 27 pounds of drugs at Lima's Jorge Chavez International Airport. Roxana Laercia had 24 pounds of cocaine hidden in her clothing, and Michael Eguonoghen had swallowed around 3 pounds of heroin capsules.

This story made me wonder why certain people think they are special and can get away with things. How does someone walk into an airport with almost 30 pounds of cocaine in a suitcase and not expect to get busted? Narcissistic maybe? It blows me away when things like this happen. Maybe they were on the drugs or so desperate that they didn't care about getting caught. What do you guys think?

Prosocial Behavior

All of us engage in this type of behavior at some point in life, some more often than others. As I read the Batson article I thought about things I've done or often do that can be deemed prosocial behavior. One thing we talked about in class last week involved holding doors for others. I always try to hold the door if I know someone is behind me, and sometimes, like we talked about in class, I stand there for a awkward amount of time waiting for a person to catch up. It's those times I think to myself, "Wow, I clearly need to work on judging distances." Then there are times where I hold the door for a person that never intended on entering the building in the first place. That happens to me at gas stations where newspaper machines sit outside the door. A person will trail me on my way in as he needs to pay the clerk for gas, and when I hold the door he vears at the last second to the machine beside the entrance. Sometimes I get a "Thanks anyway," but sometimes I get notta.

In some cases when a person actually takes advantage of my small effort I get a thanks, but, just like the other situation, there are times I don't hear a thing. No "thanks," no "gracias," no "preciate it." Nothing. The article would suggest that after a few times of not receiving grattitude I should be inclined to stop helping, but I still hold doors. I think I still do because I appreciate it when others do so for me. I appreciate it when someone helps me in any way, so I think I demonstrate behavior as a way of reciprocating to the universe, since I can't exactly repay every single door holder I come across.

In my life, I guess it comes down to the old elementary school lesson, "Treat others how you want to be treated."

Sheen

Side-note: Before I start my actual post, I want to point out that I'm in and out of reading our article on the portrayal of outgroups in the news media, and it's already lost credibility in my eyes. The author states, "Such portrayals are entirely consistent with middle-class whites' view of African Americans as poor, as not wanting to work, and as exhausting the social resources provided by the taxes of hardworking whites." Entirely consistent? This statement is clearly lazy writing as the author fails to provide any sort of source for "middle-class whites' view." If writers are going to make bold statements regarding an entire social class of people and their opinions, at least list a source. Hell, make one up so it at least looks like a credible statement. I may not even read the rest of this chapter because of that one sentence.

Anyway, rumors are floating around of CBS wanting Charlie Sheen to come back to work. RadarOnline.com reports talk of placing Sheen back on the show, but it is unclear if Chuck Lorre, Sheen's biggest target during rants, will agree to speak with Sheen. I find this interesting from a social psych perspective because people usually don't like to retract decisions for fear of seeming wishy-washy or weak. Les Moonves, CBS President and CEO, has apparently been speaking directly with top executives at Warner Brothers Television who fired Sheen in the first place. It seems to me like money may outweigh the desire to stand strong behind a decision.

Just like the Milgram experiment where people were less likely to quit after they passed a particular voltage, in most real-life cases once people commit to something they stick with their decision in attempts to make themselves feel certain and secure. It's funny how it works when money becomes involved, however.

Over the past couple of weeks Charlie Sheen has created a buzz no army of bees could outdo. Many people are tired of hearing about him, but many others love the drama. My guess is that CBS knows the latter and wants to capitalize on his popularity. The guy already has 20 concert dates planned (who knows what the content will consist of), millions of followers on Twitter, and I'm sure there are t-shirts out there with Sheen quotes being sold by the dozen. With that kind of stardom outside of the sitcom, why wouldn't CBS jump on the opportunity to make more money, even if it means seeming indecisive and weak when it comes to business plans. 

Dieting = Aggression?

According to the Journal of Consumer Research, four experiments show “that exerting self-control makes people more likely to behave aggressively toward others, and people on diets are known to be irritable and quick to anger." The studies are pretty interesting and relevant considering our country's obesity problem and subsequent love/hate relationship with fad diets. 

The first study showed that people who chose to eat an apple instead of chocolate were more likely to watch movies with angry themes than milder movies. The second study revealed more of an interest in looking at angry faces rather than fearful faces after people chose a gift certificate for groceries over one for a spa service. In the third, people on diets had more favorable opinions toward a public policy message that used an anger-inducing appeal than they did toward a sad message. The final study showed that participants who chose a healthy snack over a unhealthy snack were more irritated by a marketer's message that came across as dictatorial. 

The authors of the studies believe, "Public policy-makers need to be more aware of the potential negative emotions resulting from encouraging the public to exert more self control in daily choices." These results scare me because of our nation's need to become healthier. There is no doubt that the majority of Americans should make better choices when it comes to food intake, but what's going to happen if everyone participates in healthy eating at the same time? Everyone might be at each other's necks. I blame processed food for even having a problem like this. If we would have stayed natural from the beginning, people wouldn't have to show "self control" because there would be no other choice.

Movie Violence

So I just want to touch on movie violence as it pertains to this week's discussion. A couple months ago I watched a documentary called This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It's an entertaining documentary about the ongoing operations of the Motion Picture Association of America. The film enlightened me because I never really knew how movies got their ratings, even though every preview and every movie I've ever watched clearly says who rated the film. I just didn't know exactly how it all went down. 

Turns out, movie raters are supposed to be regular people pulled from a various backgrounds and professions in order to represent a broad sample of America, and these raters are supposed to temporary so new raters with new outlooks can keep the process relevant and up-to-date. In reality, the same people rate movies over and over and over. Some of these people have been doing it for years and are, well, behind the times. Also, the same authority figures in the whole process have been there for years and years and have developed a method for rating. This essentially has put a standardized way of rating pieces of art that vary widely from content to subject matter to relevance. 

One problem in the ratings system involves violence. Think back to all the movies you've seen in which some form of violence takes place whether it be a murder or a fist fight. Now think about the ratings of those films. The documentary points out that when it comes to determining whether a movie will be rated PG-13 or R, the raters shun sex far more than violence. In other words, movies that show people being shot (James Bond is their example) get by with PG-13 ratings while movies that only show facial expressions during sex have gotten slapped with the R rating. 

What's the big deal? Well, ratings have a huge part in how much money a film makes. The lower the rating, the broader the audience. It really just makes it possible for young kids to become exposed to violence at an early age. I'm not saying kids should become exposed to sex at an earlier age, but I would rather my kid be educated in the field of sex rather than the art of killing.  

Bullies Will Be Warned

There is a plan in the works to stop bullying through Facebook. Detectives will use the site to send messages to bullies warning them that they are breaking the law and very well be punished. Letters will also be sent to the parents of these kids to inform them of what is going on. There is a trial in the process in Thames Valley where police are teaming up with teenagers to spot online bullies and attempt to shut them down.

Basically, kids in the area will report any sort of bullying or threats to the local police at which point officers will investigate and take action if needed. The agenda will actually have a fan page on Facebook, and if enough people "like" the page, the whole process could happen across the southeast starting in May.

I think this could be a good thing if pursued correctly. By that I mean police officers that require teenagers to spot these sorts of threats should probably stick to what they know and handle business in the streets. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have web savvy individuals monitoring reports of bullying and sending official police warnings to kids, which I'm sure would most likely happen if this agenda takes off. 

I do see what they mean when they say they want to nip potential violence in the bud by stopping online bullying. I can definitely see where official warnings aimed at bullies might make them realize they can't get away with bullying online. It's sort of common sense what with the millions and millions of people on the internet, but then again, I've never really known a smart bully. Anyway, hopefully something of this sort will catch on and prevent future crimes that escalate from cyber bullying.

Charlie Sheen, Enough Said

I can't tell if this guy is a genius or a lunatic. If you haven't been exposed to at least one Charlie Sheen interview in the last week, you're missing out. Great interview link below. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5aSa4tmVNM

This guy is being persecuted in the media, and why? Because he acknowledges the fact that he's different. Well, he doesn't just acknowledge it. He makes it known with some of the best quotes I've ever heard leak from a human's mouth. "I got tiger blood, man." Brilliant! Since we talk about groupthink and conformity, I figured I would address Sheen's behavior from a social psych standpoint. 

Almost every one in media right now is calling this guy erratic (among other things). Why is it that people who act differently or think differently than the mass majority get picked on? Classmates have posted about bullying in school, but what about media. Sure, some of the things he said can be considered "inappropriate" by today's standards, but what if they are true, or what if he believes everything he says to his very core? Let the man be who he wants to be. He's out of a job, which I can understand. There obviously must be some protocol on set, and if he consistently defies the set rules, then let him go, but don't bash him on a regular basis for being him.

Interviewer, "How do you survive?"

Sheen, "Because I'm me." 

What if we all had that mindset?

Facebook For Kids

  “Today’s kids are growing up in a world that requires a whole new set of skills to become responsible digital citizens. In Togetherville, your kids learn much more than computer skills: they explore how to be creative, express themselves and learn in a fun, interactive and ad-free way. We help them use technology to connect with the important people in their lives – safely and responsibly.” - togetherville.com

Disney just acquired the rights to a social hub designed for kids 10 and younger. It's supposed to work like Facebook and will allow children to interact with each other, play games and even update statuses. Parents are in charge of monitoring their child's access, and adults can even log in with already existing Facebook information.

Really? Has social networking online become such a norm that even kids who still aren't tall enough to ride most theme park rides have to join in? Maybe I'm too skeptical, but this seems like it's pushing the limits of sanity. The first thing I thought of was safety. I haven't read too far into the story, but I really hope they have set something up to protect kids when the parents aren't at their sides. And let's face it, most parents won't be there 100% of the time while their kids are on this site. I'm interested in seeing how long until huge advertisers tap into this miniature market like they have already done on Facebook.  

Cellphone Fever

A recent study by the National Institutes of Health shows that brain activity speeds up after less than an hour of cellphone use. The study raises new questions about low levels of radiation emitted from cellphones and the health effects of such. The changes in brain activity can be seen in brain scans, but researchers have not determined if these changes have a lasting effect on a person's overall health. There have been studies that suggest a link between heavy cellphone use and brain tumors, but this particular study does not address cancer or other health issues. The lead researcher, Dr. Nora Volkow, did say the research should not set off alarms about cellphone use.

However, this raises a flag for me because I use my phone often. I also see people all over campus on their phones between classes. Tying into our class, it has become somewhat of a social norm to talk on cellphones while walking anywhere, which is scary considering the research (even though they don't know what the results mean yet). I wonder if the low levels of radiation being emitted from each phone combine to form a massive cloud of death that engulfs everyone around it. I don't know, just a thought - most likely influenced by cellphone use.

Woman Gives Birth To Her Own Grandchild

You read it correctly. This actually happened. A 35 year old woman named Sara Connell tried to have a baby with her husband for years, but she was unsuccessful. Connell's mother, Kristine Casey, agreed to help her daughter by undergoing vitro fertilization. After medical and psychological evaluations, and with the help of fertility drugs, Casey became pregnant with her son-in-law and daughter's sperm and egg.

At 61, she gave birth to a healthy baby boy via cesarean section. Doctors reported no complications during delivery and said there wasn't a dry eye in the house. Connell says the entire process came to be about her closeness with her mother, and she is forever grateful for the gift her mom has given her.

I was blown away by this story and thought about it in relation to altruism. I don't necessarily think it can be called altruism, but I think it's close. Casey had not given birth in 30 years and claimed she did not want more children. However, after her daughter's pair of failed pregnancies she decided to put her life on hold and help. I think it's amazing, a little on the weird side, but amazing.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-American-Kristine-Casey-gives-birth-to-her-own-grandson--116300104.html?page=1

Surrender

Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, finally resigned from his post. He handed over power to the military. The vice-president, Omar Suleiman, shared today that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces now holds power. People heard the news, and celebration immediately began. Relieved at the president's decision after an eighteen-day standoff, people feel this is a new beginning for Egypt. Mubarak held office for thirty years.

I really believe this is how government should work. The dictatorship that was in place wasn't working out well for the citizens, obviously. And what did they do? How about coordinate the most effective overthrow in recent history. Unfortunately, people died during the uprising, but big picture is a hopeful one.

I can't imagine something like this happening in the U.S. I really do wonder how our government would respond to massive amounts of people filling the streets of Washington D.C. to protest a new policy or law. People protest all the time, but what if we all rioted and chanted and prayed like Egyptians did? Something extremely drastic would have to happen before Americans did something like that, because of all the freedoms we have in this country. But, what if people woke up to all the manipulation we are victims of every day, and we decided to put our feet down? Because, honestly we aren't as free as we think. We just accept things like big brother as "normal" and continue to live our lives.

If Library Walls Could Talk, Would They Whisper?

I'm currently doing homework at the famous Hodges Library where all your dreams can come through. First of all, let me mention that a girl just sprinted through The Commons area, touched the wall and then ran back into the hall with a straight face. Maybe she lost a bet. Anyway, that sort of adds to the point of this post. I have been coming to this library for four years to buckle down and accomplish tasks that should have already been done. Last minute printing, last second scantron purchases and hour late emails are all part of the library's history. It makes me think of the cliche "If these walls could talk."

Then it made me wonder if those same walls would follow library norms. Libraries have always been quiet places with unspoken rules about not speaking. <---- Wait, what? The traditional library norm involves silence with any sound being pounced on by a professional "SHHHHH!" We were all taught in elementary school to be quiet in the library, so when we came to college most of us continued following the norm at Hodges.

However, some choose not to follow that norm. You know who you are. The people that carry on phone conversations, while eating the most crunchy food ever conceived by man, while slamming keys on the computer, while balling up paper, while popping knuckles all at the same time. I have to admit it's impressive, but come on. Hodges has these fancy things called designated floors. Some are for quiet study, and some are for group study. The norm would suggest that people who want quiet time go to quiet floors, and most of the time those floors do stay quiet. But, every now and then those floors host someone who dissents from the norm/rule of quietness. I'm just curious as to why, of all the norms to go against, they choose to betray one that kind of makes sense.

Aliens

I'm a huge fan of the History Channel, and they do this series called Ancient Aliens. The show basically consists of stories by researchers who tell about historical accounts of alien and human interactions. They share theories on how certain things were built from the pyramids to Stonehenge. They strongly believe that extraterrestrials with superior knowledge of science and engineering came to Earth during the time of early humans and shared their knowledge. 

I have to say, some of their theories are pretty convincing. Stonehenge, for instance, contains stones that do not belong there. Bluestones, the smaller ones, weigh about four tons each and came from about 240 miles away. The taller stones are called Sarsen stones and weigh around twenty-five tons. Researchers have no clue how the stones were physically arranged or why. One theory that ancient alien theorists have revolves around the idea of sound waves.

 )))))))))))))        <---- Those are sound waves                                                )))))))))))))

The theory is that if someone (or something) can manipulate and control sound waves, objects can be moved and place wherever the controller wants. There are actually written accounts of "wizards" during this time period who used "magic wands" to move objects. Merlin ring any bells? Theorists believe these wands were used by extraterrestrials to control sound waves and move the stones into an alignment that would somehow benefit aliens in the future.

I always wonder how many people watch this show. It must have a big following because they have produced more than one season, which means there's a demand. But what does that mean? Does it mean people believe these theories? Not sure, but I'm sure it means people are intrigued by these ideas. We have and have always had a desire to know what else is out there. These theories suggest that not only are we may distant cousins who are much more advanced than us, but that they have been here and may have influenced our history. I just wonder why we want to know so bad.