The article below struck a chord with me after following the "Power of Hatred" forum.

"How Conflicts Escalate: Overreacting to Perceived Slights

.....

By Marina Krakovsky

“If you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours,” we say, and “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Conventional wisdom and decades of research point to the universal human tendency to reciprocate, responding to good or bad acts in kind. But if people only give as good as they get, how do conflicts escalate?

The answer, according to recent University of Chicago research, is that positive and negative reciprocity are not symmetrical: we retaliate against selfishness more than we reward generosity—even when the slights are only illusory.

Researchers led by psychologist Boaz Keysar asked participants to play a “dictator game,” in which one player acts as a dictator and decides how to split a sum of money with a second player. One group of dictators started with $100 and gave a portion to the second player; the other group of dictators started with no money but took part of $100 from their partner. Later, when participants rated the dictators’ generosity, they judged the taking group inordinately more harshly than the giving group. “We found if I give you $50, you think I’m more generous than if I take just $30 from you, which is mind-boggling,” Keysar says. Furthermore, takers do not realize how greedy they appear to those on the receiving end.

These skewed judgments led to increasing selfishness with each interaction: when participants switched roles, the new dictators responded to seemingly greedy splits with less generosity themselves, the pattern continuing with each subsequent role reversal.

To stop such downward spirals, the research suggests, it is not enough to give back what you took. “To undo a negative action,” Keysar observes, “you have to go beyond reciprocating in kind.”

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=more-tit-than-tat&sc=CAT_ES_20090409

A few posters claim a 'right' to "respond in kind". Humans feel slights (real or imagined) more than we do compliments or generosity. I see little benefit to human enlightenment and wonder how this behaviour evolved.

Comments please.

,I see little benefit to human enlightenment and wonder how this behaviour evolved. ,

This behaviour did not evolve. It has been part of the nature of man since Adam and Eve. Simple as that.

Ever heard your own recorded voice? It sounds different doesn't it?
Our skulls distort what we hear.
I believe it's our very sense of Self, our deepest rooted, pre-animal, dawn of time, deep sub-conscious sense of our own identity, that it's this Primeval Ghost that distorts our perceptions of, and emotional reactions to, our own behaviour and inter-actions in the world around us.
It's the nature of the beast, and inescapable perhaps?

Maximillion

Interesting point regarding the difference from our voice we hear and that which others do. Since I began acting I have improved my verbal skills in terms of tone. Having to convey a variety of emotions such sarcasm or sympathy according to what the director requires, means I am less misunderstood when speaking in the real world.

As for slights impacting on our emotional equilibrium more than positive experiences this can be relearned. A lot of cognitive behavourial psychology is about learning to reinterpret how and the way we think. I manage my bouts of depression and to a lesser extent (because it is more difficult) anxiety, using these methods as well as meditation to regain 'mindfulness'; that is being in the moment rather than fretting about what was or what may be.

Therefore, I don't think we are completely hard-wired and have to accept that as the status quo. That the brain is more malleable than thought previously, is becoming a much studied part of neurological science.

How much is the essential 'me'? Am I just the sum of all my experiences? Or more than that? I know I can change, therefore I believe it is possible for others to change as well.

Certainly wouldn't argue with that Frackers, I'm walking proof of it myself.
I made huge changes in myself a long time ago in a different galaxy, so to speak, using all of the above and more besides, a long and difficult process, but ultimately successful.
I wonder though if that changed anything much in my deep-self, or just my ability to interpret and control it?

Cousin Id (examinator)quotes a paper he read in which nature was given up to 40% on average responsibility for control/influence over nurture. Apparently the varying degrees of impact of nature on nurture stimulus increases the variance exponentially(?). I don't pretend to understand in detail but I think this would in part explain the different responses.
As half brothers we were raised apart in very different circumstances.I'm older yet share many similar UNCOMMON attitudes yet temperamentally we are very different.

I would slit 50/50 regardless of previous treatment but Id would have difficulty with the split because of the lack of 'need' factor. I can see he would give 70/80%.also regardless.

I wonder if the statistical analysis really says much for people except in the abstract cumulative mean(?) average?
My understanding of nature is that if taken on a wide enough canvass one can make conclusions that are worthless at the individual level. I wonder also at the impact of cultural or experiences in life affecting a made up situation. But it's interesting anyway.

Dear Fractelle,

I definitely agree that negative reactions do
have a far greater impact. Is it a cultural
thing - the times we're living in - I don't
know. It seems that our entire society is
degenerating into "blame sessions."


Many people think that other people
are the problem. Whether its immigrants, Muslims,
Christians, homosexuals, single parents, and so
on.

Many people feel that their way is the right way
and that people who disagree with them are ignorant,
or bad. Others don't have any respect for the rights
of others to hold opinions different from their own.
That's where malice and intolerance comes in - as well
as personal attacks.

Of course these attitudes impact on people.

We all react to how we're
treated - and many of us have had curve balls thrown at
us by people and situations. When the right buttons
are pressed - we all react.

Yet a healthy, and vital society is not one
in which we all agree.
A healthy society is one in which we allow each other
to disagree - where we respect the opinions of others,
even though they differ from our own. Where we have
a commitment to the attributes of fair play and integrity.

Each of us is responsible for our own actions. We can't
control the actions of others. I'd like to think that
I'm capable of respecting someone who disagrees with me.
And I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with my
take on things. But it's the personal attacks and labeling
that will provoke a negative reaction from me -
and has done so on numerous
occasions in the past, much to my shame.

What can I do about it - I don't know - keep trying not
to react, or provoke any one else by being intolerant
myself.

I guess that's all I can do.

Foxy

"But it's the personal attacks and labeling that will provoke a negative reaction from me - and has done so on numerous occasions in the past, much to my shame."

I don't think you have much to feel ashamed of Foxy! I'm constantly impressed by the positive and generous manner in which you frame your arguments, even when responding to provocation that most of us, or myself at least, would have responded to in kind.

I agree, Fractelle, I think our responses to others are largely determined by our perception of the way in which they communicate toward us. I consider myself to be a warm and friendly person in most situations, but if I'm treated rudely or with total lack of consideration, the warmth and friendliness is quickly gone! I can be sharp and nasty in return and of course the level of communication then just degenerates into further coolness.

This probably wouldn't happen if I could just grin and bear it and turn the other cheek and all, but I mostly find that difficult to do. I can ignore provocation, but there are occasions where I really like to dish it out in kind!

I haven't had to dish out much on OLO for quite some time now, as the posters who most stirred that sort of reaction in me seem to have vacated the scene! I actually miss them in a strange way. Is it human nature to need a bit of agro in your day I wonder, or is it just me?

I do think Foxy is a classic example here on OLO though of how the generous response does in turn bring out the best in others. I've seen her do it many times before, and she's just gone and done it again in Romany's current thread on love. :)

eAnt

Please say hello to Cousin Id for me. :)

Bronwyn asks:

"Is it human nature to need a bit of agro in your day I wonder, or is it just me?"

Nah, its just you, Bronwyn. What's the point in being a Cyster of the Coup de Grace unless there is someone to deliver it to? But they have to deserve it first, don't they? And when such miscreants have fled the OLO scene, what do you do? Why, you punish yourself!

Here is an example: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2664#60072 . In it, inter alia, you say:

"....., but I do know my work's gone and I won't be re-writing. .... We shouldn't have to be writing our every post in a Word document first and transferring them across, purely to guard against the odd but increasingly annoying occasion that our work goes missing."

You see, it all derives from your insistence upon 'living dangerously', cyberspatially speaking. You had been advised as to the wisdom of compiling your posts, in Wordpad rather than Word as I recall (simply because it is a smaller, lighter, and native to the Windows 'operating system', and therefore quicker to call up), but did you do it? No.

And the result? You have ruined my whole weekend! To know that a literate and articulate post upon the better spending of $43 billion has been denied us all through a fit of pique, and on a topic where the silence, as Graham so aptly observes, has been deafening, is most disappointing. So please go back and write that post again, this time the safe way, and post it. Just think of it as a disciplinary punishment. You know you'll like it.

BTW, OnT. Isn't it interesting how Fractelle's quote from Marina Krakovsky reflects, or perhaps echoes, much of the content of the fifth chapter of Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount? Yet let Fractelle but mention a 'trigger word', 'evolved', and bang, a mind snaps shut! I wonder as to the applicability of Matthew 23:13 to what we have all just seen.

The responses here are so interesting and raise further questions, I don't quite know where to start.

eAnt, tell examinator I miss him.

Foxy
I have never seen you write anything that could be considered abuse, all you have ever done it courteously expressed your opinions. It is the 'perception' of the reader who interprets it as insult, simply for disagreeing.

So we have 'real' and 'imagined' slights. Either way they impact on us in negative ways. To survive (fight or flight) we have to be sensitive to anything that may hurt us, therefore we react more to 'bad' situations than we do to 'good' simply because there is no threat in generosity or a compliment - we are safe.

Where we become psychologically damaged is determined on how well we determine the 'real' from the 'imagined' abuse. Our reactions involve the production of endorphins which are exciting and stimulating and probably why we miss certain posters who have become absent of late - as Bronwyn suggests. Interesting the perversity of human nature.

Forrest

I am living on the edge right now typing this directly into the OLO editor. Compared to my youth spent riding motorcycles (among other risky business) this seems rather tame. Yet I am glad of the privacy when a particularly brilliant post is lost to the dimension of the internet, my tanties are no more mature than in my youth.

Forrest Gumpp
the insight program last night was very interesting my take on the series was that the 'Christian theologian' proved the point that no one religion or culture has a monopoly on the 'humanist' perspective of life...yes I'm one too.

Fractelle
I am suspicious of of the many of the conclusions of psychology results like the one you quoted because I wonder how widely they can be applied.
If you think of the models into climate they too are based on stats and incomplete data and look at the BS that goes on with them.
NOTE I'm not saying AGW isn't true only that mass figures and 'edumcated'( :)) guesses alone aren't as yet as good as adding multi cultural life experience.
My life with indigenous people has made me distrust culturally based concussions as applying across all cultures and circumstances. I don't believe psychology has enough factors to go much further than Id's “that's interesting... I'll have to think about that”

I told him what you said he said he misses you all too. While he not looking he was concerned that he lost his cool at some drongo and felt that he should stand by his standards..if he couldn't maintain his patience he shouldn't write. He also had to go to hospital for an opp. He believes in saying goodbye as if it's the last time he'll see someone because one day it will be true and he doesn't like others friendship to go unappreciated or unpunished? :)
Oops here

eAnt

I take your point about the psychological stats - as with all studies, I see them as tools or methods into creating greater understanding, but by no means conclusive (unlike the holy bible).

I started this topic because of the number of posts that miss each other's mark, so to speak - talking at cross purposes and getting irate in the process. Yet the complete opposite can be achieved also.

Your words about Id have alarmed, "Ooops" indeed. I find that even through written communication we can connect at an emotional level where, even if we disagree on some things, there is a feeling of correlation that I get with some posters here. Examinator is one of those people.

Dear Bronwyn and Fractelle,

Thank you for your kind words.
You've just made my day.

I've just had a very difficult Easter on a personal
level - having to deal with a great deal of
negativity - which had an emormous impact on me.
I didn't expect to read the things you wrote about me.
You've certainly lifted my spirits.

I'm travelling to Sydney tomorrow, and will
be gone for about a week.

Take care.

Ps: I miss examinator as well.

cont'd

I forgot to add that the negativity
came from certain family members -
not from any one on OLO.

Now, with Easter out of the way I feel
that I really need to "get away from it
all," to "revive," and get myself
"back on track,." 'Cause I'm not coping
well at present.

Fractelle, negativity definitely impacts
on people - I'm can vouch for that!

Dear Foxy

I'm sorry to hear you are having difficulties. I had one of the worst Christmases since my father died and thought I'd never sort out the family problems. But bit by bit I feel we are making progress. And I particularly take my own advice on perception.

I shall miss you during the week and look forward to reading your wonderful posts which are frequently an inspiration to me on responding in a little bit kinder way to those who vex me.

Love.

Forrest

LOL! Yes, I was thinking of you when I had my little dummy spit. I knew I only had myself to blame and that I should have followed your wise advice.

The word document I use is only one click of the mouse so not particularly onerous, but I still don't think we should have to be doing that. Fractelle obviously agrees. She's living dangerously as well. I do see though that she has the good sense not to air her tantrums publicly. :)

"So please go back and write that post again, this time the safe way, and post it. Just think of it as a disciplinary punishment. You know you'll like it."

No, the chance has passed, the discussion is at a different point. But thanks for taking the time to try and straighten me out. I do appreciate it. :)

Foxy

Hope there's some time in Sydney for you to treat yourself to whatever it is that lifts your spirits. Take care. :)

Ditto to Fractelle's last sentence.

Factelle,
The oops was that he was coming into the room. The 'drongo' was a male with matching brain power to that of the bird of the same name.
He's Ok now but is involved with other issues at the moment. Id is staying with me at the moment. I know he has great fondness for you and the women and others on OLO. Just didn't need the BS at the time.

Did you watch the "Insight" series they were interesting? As the Christian Theologian said it doesn't matter if Christianity is a mixture of myths from other and older religions. What matters is the teachings in essence Humanism is the same teachings without the omnipotent God. Good is Good. and what is good is determined by cultural mores. Hence the test if given to say Chinese the result might be skewed.
Cheers to you

eAnt,

I was relieved to hear that Examinator is o.k. I think, if he read all our comments when he said his goodbyes, he will have some idea of the value he brings to this site.

I guess a lot of us find it easy to understand his pov re OLO. I know when I have allowed myself to bite back I feel so ashamed of myself it takes me to a bad place. I think there are quite a few of us who have to take some R&R from time to time.

Just relieved that it was not purely due to health problems that he retired for a while. I also agree with letting people know how we value them before its too late. So, make sure you pass on my fond wishes too.

Fractelle: I know I've mentioned it before but I truly believe that a lot of the negativity that seems to be flowing is media induced. There is such a difference between societal attitudes where the Teeve isn't saturated with violent images, crime shows, 24/7 coverage of storms in teacups.

One of my sons who recently spent a year overseas is finding it really difficult to deal with TV and radio now he is back. He said he hadn't noticed it before he left, but now he's back he doesn't watch TV at all and even Triple J get switched off at times.

I don't believe for a moment that this imperfectly balanced coverage is in response to consumer demands. Both he and his girlfriend went into a completely negative state when they were sharing a house with another couple who had the TV or radio on continuously but, once again alone, and free to switch off, they are feeling much more positive.

"...is that positive and negative reciprocity are not symmetrical..."

I equate this statement with the glass half full/empty syndrome. Half EMPTY sounds worse than half FULL because of the negative spin, yet in effect they are the same.

As has been discussed on other threads, perhaps it comes down to that ultimate self-interest aspect of human nature. We are impacted more by the negative even if it is only illusory, because it affects our sense of self, stability and security. Or Ego.

Maybe we are all a bit Ying and Yang where all the elements interact sometimes giving yield to the positive and other times to the negative; or sometimes pulling in opposite directions.

Foxy, keep well and remember - "Problems give birth to wisdom. Sorrows cultivate compassion."

Fractelle, surely in the 'dictator game' the real thing being measured is choice and not selfishness. I am willing to share my money 50:50 but resent it if you take even 30% of my money when I have no choice in the matter.

The first instance is a game because of the choice factor; the second denies individual choice and responsibility for the possessor of the money and is not likely to be appreciated.

palimpsest

And how you perceived the 'fairness' of the game is exactly what the scientists were researching.

AT the beginning of the game no-one had any money, therefore, even though the other person only gave 30% of the $100, you are still actually $30 better off than before the game started. However, because you believe that 50% is fairer (and I personally agree BTW) you are possibly less likely to be as fair to the next person in the game because of how you reacted to the first person who kept $70 for themselves. Or if you were paired again with the same stingy person, you could then reciprocate in kind, by offering $30, $20 or even by keeping all the money. Then that person may well feel offended even though s/he was stingy to begin with.

This is how negative perceptions can escalate. As Kurt Vonnegut would say, so it goes...

Our perceptions can then be so firmly set in our minds about a situation we are unlikely to change our opinion and retain negative feelings towards others.

It is a fact of human nature. Are we more likely to be generous acting in a group? Or in a one on one situation where we have the power ($)? Acting singly it is harder to survive, hence a certain level of greed become a part of human nature. On the other side of the same coin acting cooperatively within the group situation survival is more likely, hence we also developed the ability for altruism.

Fractelle, lucky for us that most people we come across in life do not behave the way the rats did in the dictator game. Most transactions in life appear to me to go quite amicably.

The second transaction in the game where the dictator decides for us how much money we can keep reminds me of taxation, and explains why tax avoidance is so popular the world over.

palimpsest

The point I have been trying to make is that we feel a negative experience more deeply than a positive and this fact influences how we interact with others even at a subliminal level.

You can see examples of this 'emotional baggage' carried into the discussion groups on OLO, someone has had a bad experience with 'X' and applies that experience to all 'X's. This is the start of prejudice. When challenged such a person who cannot accept that their POV may not apply to all 'X's often responds with vitriol, after that the discussion thread generally loses its way and degenerates into a type of brawl. The ironical thing is that the original 'bad' experience may not even be so bad at all - it was just perceived to be grossly unfair. As I said, at the beginning of the "dictator's game" everyone started with no money at all, therefore, unless the all 'dictators' withheld all the money, only half the participants remained the same as when they started - no money.

However, most dictators did give a percentage, and depending on the recipient's experience as to the percentage received being unfair, then the game devolved into increasing unfairness, as participants decided that 'tit for tat' was more appropriate as well as rebelling against the authority of whoever was a dictator.

Fortunately, not all the world is like that, but we are very much on the brink at all times, with the pendulum swinging from 'unfair' (Pol Pot) to fair - equal opportunities for all people regardless of their social standing.

"that positive and negative reciprocity are not symmetrical."

I think this is true, but only within a particular paradigm. Every strand of human activity ultimately reaches parity, even if it takes a number of different life cycles to achieve it. At any point in time, are there unfairnesses embedded throughout the system? Yes.

But, on the bright side, it's the asymmetry in life that breaks up hegemonies and other dead patterns and keeps allows things to become new and refreshed.

RobP

Excellent point; it is asymmetry which leads to diversity which keeps life from being a bland experience.

I think Bronwyn noted earlier on this thread that she misses a couple of posters who were often dogmatic, pigheaded, patronising and very often nasty. While I would often just skim their posts, if enough meaning caught my attention, I would prepare a response, which at the very least has benefited my writing and argument skills.

However, I find exploring how we achieve the perceptions and beliefs that we have of great interest and certainly pertinent in debating a topic. By keeping an awareness of how simply our opinions may be formed we can remain flexible, empathic and adaptable towards others.

Fractelle,

"I find exploring how we achieve the perceptions and beliefs that we have of great interest and certainly pertinent in debating a topic. By keeping an awareness of how simply our opinions may be formed we can remain flexible, empathic and adaptable towards others."

My take on this is that there are all sorts of reasons why people are different - some are just bad people who don't want to fit in, those that mean well but are caught in the currents of their past history and can't break their existing pattern without creating other waves and, of course, those that were ever in calm waters and never needed to cause problems for others.

If you could trace it right back to their origins, you'd probably find as many reasons for people's behaviour and beliefs as there are people.

Now, your earlier comment is obviously primarily referring to the rather abrasive Col. While I didn't at all like his, at times, nastiness and abrasiveness, there's no doubt he believes in the freedom of the individual to make his own decisions, right or wrong. You'd probably find that his starting point in life was always one of independence and objectivity that became fiercer as he ran into what he considered to be more and more blockages. Sometimes people like Col take this course because they can't change and sometimes because they won't. On the positive side, I always sensed that if you took a dispassionate view of things with no strings attached, Col would think about it and possibly even appreciate it.

Fractelle,
I think you might be confusing a number of different issues here.

The dictator game was In my opinion (IMo) flawed and at best can only be said applies to that group, that cultural back ground.

One assumes the experiment was done within a culture of financial accumulation. I can think of cultures that wouldn't be able to play this game as the concepts involved would offend their conditioning. However if the two groups were from different tribal nations then the result maybe very different again.

Also in the case of OLO I think the problems are more to do with issue
self image, social. Paulene Hanson syndrome.
fear of the unknown i.e. rejection of anything that might upset their view their of the world. i.e. no point in life with out order or God(s) racial differences.
Their intellectual abilities and feelings of insecurity competing with smarter people
Other assorted psychological problems need to dominate, having a bad experience with say aggressive women or men.
Applying the conclusions from the Dictator game to OLO is Imo over interpreting it a lot.
It maybe a factor but I doubt that it is a major one. As a tool a screw driver is useful but isn't the best tool for hammering nails into prejudices.

I got to admit that this does my head in Fractelle. Dictator A gives me $50 and Dict B gives me $100 then takes back $30 leaving me with $70, and B is the bad guy?? I can understand the equation but cannot really 'get inside the head' of the response quoted.

I agree that we see the effect of negative responses escalating here on OLO alot. Boaz' negative response to Islam never failed to get reflexive responses from the same people, while others just started to ignore him.

I admit that the only person who ever suckered me in on OLO was Nichols from the Atheist Fdn. but for the most I try and respond with a bit of wry humour or ignore.

I guess my comment is that some might operate on this perceived level all the time, some sometimes and others rarely.

On another level, I read where taxes will have to increase sharply to pay for the Fed. governments stimulus package and cash giveaways. Surely this is will be bad news for the govt in light of the way we perceive negatives? Is Rudd sowing the seeds of his political demise in 4 years time?

Thanks for the responses people.

Now I'd just like to make the following points:

The "Dictator's Game" was never intended to be THE answer to the multi-faceted construction of the human persona. I just thought it would be interesting to consider how easily we can feel slighted in some way.

I like to view things from all angles, turn them around, upside down and inside out - laterally in other words.

I saw the game as eAnt does, merely a tool among many that we can use.

I see the fair/unfair POV occur in many situations where we are trying to create equality of opportunity, such as for indigenous people. It appears that if any group receives anything that may be considered 'special' in some way, there are those who will say that's unfair without considering the unique circumstances of a particular group.

I have tried to steer clear of specific examples in order not to get caught up in side issues, such as people who see a level of 20% or 30% women in politics as 'feminists taking over'. Humans have a tendency to see one swallow and think it’s Spring. In the "dictator game" the point of it was to show how a small unfairness can escalate into a perception that one is being treated with gross disrespect.

Palimpsest
Don’t get too caught up with the game, it is the results that are interesting; how antagonism can spiral.

RobP you stated:

"If you could trace it right back to their origins, you'd probably find as many reasons for people's behaviour and beliefs as there are people."

I think yes and no.

Consider the following brain teaser: http://www.smellybean.com/ViewVid.jsp?VidID=738

Are you among the 98% or 2%?

That was an odd one, Fractelle.

>>Are you among the 98% or 2%?<<

I came up with green spade.

And I don't even do any gardening.

Then again, I don't often pick up a hammer either.

All of which makes me wonder if I have a concentration problem... ooh look, a butterfly.

Pericles

That you didn't think of the item the majority thought of, means you are (as you always suspected) completely unique.

The green spade means you are indeed very concerned about the environment and wish to have the means to do something about it.

;-)