Violence. It surrounds us. It is all over the media. It is so common in our society today that violence has become the norm rather than the exception. Perhaps one out of every ten people in the United States have experienced or witnessed a violent crime. Psychology Today states that homicide is the 5^th most common cause of death in the United States in all age brackets between 1 and 44 years. Violence to one’s self, in the form of suicide, is ranked second only to death by accidental causes. As violence is a behavior, it is common to lay the blame for violence to a psychological abnormality. Unfortunately, that is not the cut and dried case.

The potential for violence exists in all of us. It is part of our biology. Especially in males. Men are far more predisposed to violence than women, and this has been the case since the dawn of time. We were violent to hunt for food, protect ourselves and our families and to maintain order in society. As we can see, violence is still required today to do much the same thing.

Everywhere, we see the potential for violence. In how the police keep the peace, in how the military defends politics and diplomacy across the globe. In how one group seizes property, or food, or people against their will through the use of violence.

While we are predisposed to violence as a species, let us not forget that we haven’t brought ourselves to the point of extinction yet. This is because for all of our violent tendencies, society has developed a moral structure. Whether it’s because of a common belief in a spiritual concept, a religion, or just some inner moral compass, society has evolved with laws. These laws guide us through what is right and what is wrong. Such an evolution has brought some structure to societies, and has maintained some control over humanity’s violent aspects.

While yes, psychology is part of the equation of violence, there are other determining factors that make a person more predisposed to violence. For instance, it has often been discussed that environment, and external influence play a large part in violent behavior. A person who grows up in a violent environment, or around violent people may be more apt to be violent themselves. This can be seen across the United States where people grow up, and live in rough neighborhoods. Young impressionable people tend to go with the flow in order to be accepted by the elder violent natured individuals in their society. Observing aggressive behavior makes children learn new aggressive behaviors, for we tend to imitate the specific behaviors that we see, and start to believe that it is OK to do the same (Bandura 1973).

Influences in that environment could be a constant state of war such as we see in developing countries. It could be gang members who recruit younger people through coercion, or exposure to violence. It could be any number of hate groups who are able to influence people, imparting to them at a young age that one race or another is inferior, or to blame for something. In doing so, such groups are able to convince people that an ethnic group is deserving violence. So it can successfully be debated that environment, and external influence, are definitely keys to violent behavior.

There are others who argue that it is only biology that is the defining factor regarding violent behavior. In an article for Medical News Today, the author writes that the Hypothalamus, the ventrolateral part of the ventromedial hypothalamus, and the Lateral Septum areas of the brain are specifically to blame for violent behavior. Biology can be a factor to understand violent behavior in relation to build-up of electrical impulses that finally get released in a physical expression. But it surely does not help to explain exactly why these impulses get built-up.

In my opinion, I believe it is a combination of factors. I am United States Air Force veteran who has deployed to numerous locations where violence is common, and then spent time as a contractor there. From my exposure to these other cultures, I can say that I believe that environment plays a large part in violent behavior along with external influence. The more people are fed the idea that violence is acceptable, the more they are inclined to exhibit violent behavior.

It is true though that biology is really the tie that binds all of us into a predisposition for violence. Studies have shown that any person placed under enough negative mental stress will react violently to the situation they are in. In effect the Fight or Flight response is triggered. This is because regardless of environment, influence, or predisposition, we are all human and are all hardwired in the same way. Violence is a product of the Fight or Flight response. When presented with a given situation imbued with enough negative mental stress, we will either fight or run. Factors such as environment and influence will either mitigate or exacerbate our response.

To make matters worse, the ingestion of certain drugs such as amphetamines can produce states where the individual is more prone to be violent. The same can be said for alcohol, which is notorious for lowering impulse control. If the condition is chronic, then the individual will become violent over and over again. Again this is a matter of an external influence.

Now having said that, there are certain people who argue that psychology is the only defining factor. According many health professionals, mental illness is widely considered the principal cause for violent behavior.

People with psychotic tendencies who have no real sense of right or wrong are certainly more predisposed to violence. This is especially so in Paranoid Schizophrenics, where people come to believe they are being persecuted. They may then attack the person they believe is persecuting them. The same can be said of people who are sexually deviant. Often they will perform violent acts against other people to satisfy a psychological need. However, there is a standing argument that sexual deviance is a product of both environment, and the individual being a victim of sexual violence themselves. Therefore, potentially, sexual deviance is a result of environment and negative external influence.

The trend of violence in today’s society has reached epidemic proportions. In violent riots, people may act out violently because people around him or her are acting violently. It is perceived as normal to do so in such situations in which peer pressure, an external influence, lowers an individual’s self-control, thus allowing for violent behavior.

A child with a history of parental abuse kills small animals for the sheer enjoyment of doing so. The child has experienced violent behavior and is looking for an outlet to express his or her own violent tendencies. Once the child knows he or she has an outlet, they will continue to find ways to express their violent tendencies. The concern here is that as this person gets older, the need for release will need to be satisfied to a greater degree. Much in the way a drug addict needs larger and larger doses to maintain a high.

A soldier acts out violently on numerous occasions. He has a string of prior violent actions before joining the Army. Because of his violent tendencies, he is more accepted as a soldier. In such a situation, where violence is considered the norm, a person with a predisposition to violence could function for years before anyone caught on that they were actually emotionally disturbed.

A man with an automatic rifle walks in to a church and opens fire, killing dozens of people. Perhaps he has a deep seated hatred for an ethnic group. Or perhaps he has an issue with the religion being preached in the church. What is disturbing is that he has convinced himself over time that his actions are acceptable. He has decided that it is right to render violence to other people.

We see so much violence now that we have become jaded to it. Oversaturation of the topic by the media has made us numb to the violence in our society. We have in fact come to expect it. This is because the media knows that bad news sells better than good news. This is another example of external influence.

It is therefore my opinion that yes psychology does play a part. So does environment and external influence. When these three factors are combined with the fact that we are by nature, and biology violent creatures, the predisposition for violence increases exponentially. A word of caution however in stereotyping people who, based on these factors, are predisposed to violent behavior. We are all capable of violence. It merely depends on the situation we find ourselves in at a given moment in time.

References

• Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

·       Fields. R. Douglas. 2016. “The Science of Violence,” Psychology Today.

• https://psychweb.chbs.jmu.edu/Graysojh/pdfs/Volume101-ChildrenWhoAbuseAnimals.pdf
• https://www.traversebaycac.org/2018/06/15/animal-abuse-child-abuse-link/

Global Climate Report. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov). July 2019.

It’s summer, and it is hot out there; but if it feels like record-breaking temperatures are becoming more common globally, they are. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and European Copernicus Climate Change Service announced that July 2019 was the hottest month across the globe ever measured since measurements began, in 1880. Global temperatures averaged 16.73°C in July, which is 0.95 °C higher than the 20th-century average of 15.78°C . Average Antarctic sea-ice coverage was 8.5% below the 1981-2010 average. And sea ice coverage was 10.5% below the overall average, which is based on records beginning in 1979. The scientists also released geographical data, showing that the regions where temperatures varied furthest from averages, were Alaska, Central Europe, Northern and Southwestern parts of Asia, and certain regions in Africa and Australia. These findings corroborate scientific predictions regarding the effects of man-made climate change. Human activities, primarily from burning fossil fuels, emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Increasing greenhouse gas emissions are associated with warmer global surface temperatures. The planet’s 10 hottest years on record have all fallen in the past two decades. Scientists and policymakers around the globe are also feeling this heat.

Unless significant measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions are adopted, scientists expect temperature records to keep falling. Scientists say global temperatures could increase by at least 3°C this century, which will create conditions on Earth that have not been seen in more than 2 million years. Given the notable trends in higher temperatures and natural disasters, we might be pushing the climate system toward states that we haven’t seen in our societal experience – and even in our species’ experience.

Manipulation of brain circuits using smartphone-controlled device

Qazi R et al. Wireless optofluidic brain probes for chronic neuropharmacology and photostimulation. Nature Biomedical Engineering, August 2019.

Scientists recently designed a device that can regulate brain circuits using a tiny brain implant controlled by a smartphone. This bluetooth-enabled device utilizes replaceable lego-like drug cartridges to target neurons with drugs and light. Existing methods to deliver drugs and light to the brain typically involve metal tubes and optical fibers. These tools are rigid and can substantially damage the brain’s soft tissue over time. Moreover, this bulky equipment often limits the patient’s movement because of the wired connections, making them unfit for long-term use. To achieve chronic remote-controlled drug delivery without exhaustion and evaporation of drugs, scientists invented a neural device with a replaceable drug cartridge, which could allow neuroscientists to study the same brain networks for several months without depleting the drug supply. These “plug-n-play” drug cartridges were integrated into a brain implant for mice with a soft and ultrathin probe (about the thickness of a human hair), which consisted of microfluidic channels and tiny LEDs (smaller than a grain of salt), for unlimited drug doses and light delivery. The implant is regulated via a smartphone, allowing researchers to trigger precise combinations and sequences of drug and light delivery. In animal models, these stimuli can be triggered with the target outside of the laboratory, allowing researchers to wirelessly instill changes in the animal’s brain while in its natural habitat. Using these neural devices, researchers are now able to perform fully automated animal studies where the behavior of one animal could positively or negatively affect behavior in other animals by conditional triggering of light and/or drug delivery. This device will allow researchers to better dissect the neural circuit basis of behavior and how specific neuromodulators in the brain tune behavior in various ways. In addition, the device can be utilized in complex pharmacological studies to develop potentially new therapeutics for pain, addiction, and emotional disorders.

The secret weapon of E.Coli 

Melson E. at al. The sRNA DicF integrates oxygen sensing to enhance enterohemorrhagic Escherichia colivirulence via distinctive RNA control mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 2019.

Scientists have revealed how E. coli (Escherichia coli) bacteria seeks out the most oxygen-free parts of your colon to cause the worst infection possible. E. coli normally live in the intestines of healthy people and animals. Most varieties of E. coli are harmless or cause relatively brief diarrhea. But a few particularly nasty strains can cause cramps, diarrhea, vomiting – even kidney failure and death. Children are particularly at risk. A new study uncovers how this foodborne pathogen knows where and when to begin colonizing the colon on its way to making you sick. Bacterial pathogens typically colonize a specific tissue or organ in the host. Therefore, as part of their infection strategies, bacterial pathogens precisely time deployment of proteins and toxins to these specific colonization niches in the human host. This allows the pathogens to save energy and avoid detection by our immune systems and ultimately cause disease. The researchers in this study identified how E.Coli detects low oxygen levels in the large intestine and then produces proteins that allow it to attach to host cells and establish infection. Oxygen actually diffuses from the intestinal tissue into the gut, and there are comparably higher levels in the small intestine than the large. Remarkably, E. coli specifically waits until it has reached the-low oxygen large intestine before striking. E. coli controls this process via a small form of RNA that activates particular genes when oxygen levels are low. This is the point when the infection really gets established and the bacteria are able to begin to manufacture harmful Shiga toxins. The researchers predict that other bacterial pathogens, such as Shigella and Salmonella, likely utilize a similar control mechanism. Researchers suggest that if we can find a way to block oxygen sensing, we may be able to prevent the infection by allowing E. coli to pass harmlessly through the body.

The importance of character education programs

There are some programs that are called character education for detection of problematic behavior and school violence prevention or reduction. Was, Woltz, and Drew (2006) underscored the need for character education programs through utilizing statistics concerning school violence, absence, and dropout percentages. Bohlin, Farmer, and Ryan (2001) utter that in the US, there is a rising demand in schools to provide effective character education, whose purpose is to increase moral values, respect, citizenship, social skills, etc.

One of the most significant goals of character education programs is to decrease the bullying and peer-victimization that pervade many schools (Batsche – Knoff, 1994). Hence, character education programs should be taught effectively to prevent behavior problems and help students solve their own problems, since effective character education programs can alter the climate of a school by influencing the behaviors and attitudes of the students. That is, when appropriately implemented, character education programs encourage a positive school climate, thus improve academic performance and learning (Sherblom, Marshall – Sherblom, 2006). In addition, Leming (1993) expressed that “teachers in the program classrooms reported a statistically significant two-and-one-half times reduction in problem behavior in students” (p. 68).

The need for computer-based animated vignettes

In order to cope with the aforementioned problems such as bullying, victimization, unwanted behaviors within schools, etc., character education institutions can hire more teaching staff, or teachers can work more than they have done before. However, neither hiring more staff nor working harder is an appropriate solution to help students deal with the problems encountered in schools, because students should learn to cope with the problems by themselves. Thus, they need to have the self-confidence and self-esteem to overcome inappropriate behaviors. It means that the implementation of the character education programs is crucial in terms of their effectiveness.

In this respect, there could be some efforts to facilitate social competence within the classroom and to lead to positive behavioral outcomes (Kam, Greenberg, – Kusche, 2004). Therefore, as an alternative solution, computer-based animated vignettes utilized in character education programs such as Clover, which “is a multimedia tool that empowers students to construct their own animated vignettes that meaningfully express personal experiences” (Baily, Tettegah – Bradley, 2006, p. 802) can be part of these efforts to solve students’ problems in moral and social situations by stimulating them to engage in problem solving (Bailey et al., 2006).

It is important for these programs to be computer-based, since, as Bers (2001) underscored, computers are influential tools for self-exploration. Computers are also beneficial for children in terms of socialization. Heft and Swaminathan (2002) mentioned in their study that children could interact with one another because instructors want them to work in pairs. This provokes them to ask questions to each other to solve problems. Furthermore, in the study done by Nastasi and Clements (1992), it was revealed that a computer-based program, Logo, could foster cognitive development by stimulating cognitively-based resolution of cognitive struggles.

Definitions of animated vignettes

Tettegah and Anderson (2007) describe Animated Narrative Vignettes (ANV’s) as “concrete examples of people and their behaviors, and stories about individuals, situations, and structures that can make reference to important points in the study of perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes” (p. 51). Some researchers, Zhou et al. (2003) define vignettes as ”emotion-evoking stimuli presented via audiotapes, videotapes, or realistic enactments that aim to make participants believe that the events and people involved in the stimuli are real, not hypothetical.” As understood through the definitions, animated vignettes are related to either behaviors or real visual events. Therefore, animated vignettes may be utilized in character education classes to make them more effective to reduce behavioral distortions.

Animated vignettes in character education

Bailey et al., (2006, p. 796) pointed out that when technology education is integrated within learning activities that are meaningful to students, it could be more effective. Therefore, they aimed to seek to link the delivery of technology and character education through the utilization of animated vignettes. In this process, students can gain and exercise technological skills and learn how to figure out concepts within a learning activity that is important to them while also building the vignettes via computers (Bailey et al., 2006, p. 796). Vignettes have been utilized to instruct Mathematics and Science, management skills, problem solving, and character education (Bailey et al., 2006,p. 797). In the sense of character education, Vignettes are typically used to facilitate some techniques, such as reflection, role-playing, problem solving, and ethical thinking and positive social behavior among students (Bailey et al., 2006,p. 797).

So far, this paper has discussed the importance of character education programs, the need for animated vignettes, and their definitions. Next, this paper will present the effectiveness of animated vignettes and how they can facilitate learners to recognize and reduce problem behaviors.

The effectiveness of animated vignettes

Vignettes are beneficial and effective as a teaching instrument; this is because they can provide real representations of situations, helping students solve problems (Bailey et al., 2006). In the article of Bailey et al., (2006), it is sought to link technology and character education through constructing and utilizing animated vignettes. Researchers illustrate that animated vignettes could be more beneficial when they provide three important features: meaningfulness, personal experiences, and having a dialogue.

a) Meaningfulness

Thanks to these computer-based animated vignettes, students will be able to learn via some activities that are meaningful to them. To provide effective character education, vignettes can be used as a significant tool (Bailey et al., 2006, p. 796). For example, in the study implemented by Tettegah and Anderson (2007), animated vignettes were used for gathering data. Vignettes showed an interaction between two children – “Scott, a 9-year old Caucasian boy, and Jamilah, a 9-year old African American girl; or Jamal, a 9-year old African American boy, and Erin, a 9-year old Caucasian girl) – and one teacher (Ms. Litts), and one parent (Mr. Young)” (Tettegah – Anderson, 2007, p. 52).

The vignettes were counterbalanced to determine if responses given by pre-service teachers are different from one another about the race of the victim and perpetrator. A child told the animated vignette; thus, the characters in these vignettes symbolized real people in real life. Ms. Litts (the teacher) was working with the class on a supportive learning activity, such as making paper puppets or building bridges. However, there was no difference between activities in terms of vignettes. That is, the same performances were represented in each vignette. In these processes, making paper puppets or building bridges, the teacher wanted students to work each other, like “Scott with Jamilah in the puppet making activity or Jamal with Erin in the bridge making activity, depending on the vignette” (Tettegah – Anderson, 2007, p. 52). In each scenario, the boy (Scott or Jamal) told the girl (Jamilah or Erin) that they did not want to be in the same group with the girls because of their skin color. They added that their skin color might influence them. After that, the girl’s fathers reported the event to the teacher, Ms. Litts, and the teacher was surprised, since they had talked about Martin Luther King Jr., which she believed was relevant to the topic.

After watching the vignette, participants were asked how they would respond if they were in the teacher’s position, and they wrote down their responses. In this example, participants were asked to put themselves into another person’s position through animated vignettes. As a consequence of the study, participants could place themselves into another character, and could try to consider helping their children solve the prescribed problems.

b) Personal experiences

As a solution, computer-based character education programs could be effective if animated vignettes are “based on personal experiences rather than on artificially constructed circumstances” (Bailey et al., 2006, p. 794). Students can improve both self-awareness and interpersonal skills by practicing some skills shown in vignettes. That is, they can also incorporate theory and practice in a personally related way (Barter – Renold, 2000). Thanks to this process, students are able to engage in their own ethical and social thinking. This allows students to become more engaged in their own moral and social thinking (Tappan, 1991).

To illustrate, consider this example: in the study implemented by Tettegah (2005), there was a real experience of a father, daughter, classmate, and teacher developed in the animated narrative vignettes and told by a real person. After viewing the vignettes, the educators wrote some responses for problem solving to questions like, “Who does the participant express empathy with? In whose position does the respondent imagine himself?” (Tettegah, 2005, p.383). Thanks to these questions, teachers could better understand peer conflicts related to classroom education. Responses were to involve educators and students in sharing with others to help them to be aware of conflicts that are both peer and teacher-related (Tettegah, 2005, p.383).

c) Dialogue opportunities

Through using animated narrative vignettes, it is possible to have a dialogue that will allow educators to talk over and also foster a better understanding of bullying and victimization (Tettegah, 2005). Computer-based animated vignettes are beneficial tools for discovering relationships between people (Fong – Woodruff, 2003). For instance, well-known educators are brought together to discuss issues about oppression and discrimination in their classrooms through cultural portals. In these meetings, they try to figure out how to cope with the problems in the classroom and within the school’s social environment. Using computer-based tools to find the cause of complex behaviors in the class is very useful (Tettegah, 2005). Although this seems to affect students’ problem behaviors indirectly, it may be effective in comprehending the problems and discovering some solutions to reduce problem behaviors.

Conclusion

Implementing computer-based programs to help recognize and solve problematic behaviors could be very beneficial to many schools. As emphasized above, researchers have shown that there are problematic behaviors observed in schools. Therefore, character education programs could be effective to reduce and solve these problems. Making the programs more beneficial as a means of computer-based animated vignettes helps students notice and reduce problems. They can be more effective if they are meaningful to students and if students can put themselves into the real characters in the vignettes to recognize the problems. The personal experiences underscored in the vignettes trigger students’ awareness through practicing the skills showed in the vignettes. And the vignettes can assist in generating a dialogue between educators and students to understand the issues and help develop some solutions together.

Namik Top is a PhD candidate in the Department of Educational Psychology at Texas A-M University.

References

• Algozzine, K., Christian, C., Marr, M. B., McClanahan, T., – White, R. (2008). Demography of problem behavior in elementary schools. Exceptionality, 16, 93 – 104.
• Baily, B.P., Tettegah, S.Y., – Bradley, T.J. (2006). Clover: Connecting technology and character education using personally-constructed animated vignettes. Interacting with Computers, 18, 793-819
• Barter, C., – Renold, E. (2000). I wanna tell you a story: Exploring the application of vignettes in qualitative research with children and young people. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(4), 307-323.
• Batsche, G.M., – Knoff, H.M., 1994. Bullies and their victims: understanding a pervasive problem in the schools. School Psychology Review 23 (2), 165-174.
• Bers, M. (2001). Identity construction environments: Developing personal and moral values through the design of a virtual city. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 365-415.
• Bohlin, K.E., Farmer, D., – Ryan, K., 2001. Building Character in Schools. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
• Bowen, J., Jenkins, W., – Clark, E. (2004). School-based intervention for students with behavior problems. New York: Kluewer Academic.
• Fong, C., – Woodruff, E. (2003). Web based video and frame theory in the professional development of teachers: Some implications for distance education. Distance Education, 24(2), 195-211.
• Freeman, R., Eber, L., Anderson, C., Irvin, L., Horner, R., – Bounds, M. (2006). Building an inclusive school culture using school-wide PBS: Designing effective individual support systems for students with disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(1), 4-17.
• Heft, T.M., – Swaminathan, S. (2002). The effects of computers on the social behavior of preschoolers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16(2) 162-174.
• Henricsson, L., – Rydell, A. M. (2004). Elementary school children with behavior problems: Teacher-child relations and self-perception. A prospective study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 111−138.
• Kam, C. M., Greenberg, M. T., – Kusche, C. A. (2004). Sustained effects of the PATHS curriculum on the social and psychological adjustment of children in special education. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 66−78.
• (Heft, 2002) (Heft, 2002) (Heft, 2002)Nastasi, B.K. – Clements, D.H. (1992). Social-cognitive behaviors and higher-order thinking in educational computer environments. Learning and Instruction, 2, 215-238.
• Pace, T. M., Mullins, L. L., Beesley, D., Hill, J. S., – Carson, K. (1999). The relationship between children’s emotional and behavioral problems and the social responses of elementary school teachers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 140−155.
• Sherblom, S., Marshall, J., – Sherblom, J. (2006). The relationship between school climate and math and reading achievement. Journal of Research in Character Education, 1(1), 19-31.
• Tappan, M., 1991. Narrative, language, and moral experience. Journal of Moral Education 20, 243-256.
• Tettegah, S., 2005. Technology, narratives, vignettes, and the intercultural and cross-cultural teaching portal. Urban Education 40 (4), 368-393.
• Tettegah, S., – Anderson. C. J. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ empathy and cognitions: Statistical analysis of text data by graphical models. Contemporary Educational Psychology 32, 48-82.
• Was, C., Woltz, D., – Drew, C. (2006). Evaluating character education programs and missing the target: A critique of existing research. Educational Research Review, 1(2), 148-156.
• Zhou, Q., Valiente, C., – Eisenberg, N. (2003). Empathy and its measurement. In N. Lopez – C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 269-281). American Psychological Association.

Astronomers have discovered a planet with the longest known orbital period. Exoplanet Kepler-421b has been identified through the Kepler observatory, a space-based telescope. It circles its star once every 704 days. More than 1800 exoplanets have been discovered so far, but compared to Kepler-421b, those had much shorter orbital periods, like a few weeks or even a few days. The host star for Kepler-421b is much like the sun, but it is little bit smaller and relatively cooler. With an orbital distance of 177 million kilometers, Kepler-421b gets about one-fourth the light from the host star as the Earth receives from the sun, which makes the exoplanet as cold as -100 °C. The unusual orbit places Kepler-421b beyond the “snow line,” which is accepted as the dividing line between rocky and gaseous planets. Outside of the snow line, water condenses into ice grains that stick together to build planets known as “gas giants.” Since gas giant planets are very close to their stars, theorists believe that many exoplanets migrate inward early in their history. However, Kepler-421b is the first example of why such migration may not be necessary.

Sunflowers’ internal clock

Plants are known to grow toward the sun to maximize the amount of energy they absorb. Sunflowers (Helianthus annuus) show the most fascinating behavior during summer, when they follow the sun as it rises in the east every morning and sets in the west every evening. In a recent study, scientists challenged the obvious explanation for this plant’s behavior: are flowers solely responding to sunlight or are there other unknown mechanisms at work? They designed a clever yet simple experiment where they grew sunflowers in chambers with a fixed overhead light that was continuously on. Surprisingly, for several days, the sunflowers under constant light kept moving as if the sun were rising in the east and setting in the west. This unexpected result suggests that sunflowers were not responding only to the direction of the light but also to an internal biological clock. Furthermore, they discovered that sunflowers bend when one side of the stem grows faster than the other. For example, the west side of the stem seems to grow faster to bend the plant towards the east in the morning. Scientists now hope to understand how an internal biological clock in sunflowers has the opposite effects on opposite sides of the stem. Sunflowers are not the only plants performing this diurnal dance; other agriculturally important crops such as soybeans and cotton exhibit the very same behavior. Solar tracking is known to boost plant yield and discovering the mechanisms of how plants track the sunlight might have important implications for improving global agricultural yields.

Friends linked by genes

It is a common observation that close friends look alike. Even centuries ago, Plato noted the tendency that good friends usually have similar appearances. Recently, a group of geneticists took this idea even further and suggest that people on average tend to choose friends who are genetically similar. The study provided convincing evidence that we have more DNA sequences in common with the people we pick as friends than we do with strangers in the same population. Researchers performed a genome-wide analysis of approximately 1.5 million markers of gene variations from 1,932 subjects of the Framingham Heart Study, which is one of the most comprehensive genetic databases. They identified 1300 pairs of non-relative friends and compared their genetic information to each other. The analyses showed that friends share similar genetic variations (around 1% genomewide), to the degree that it is as if they have the same great-great-great-grandparent – in other words, as if they were fourth cousins. Notably, friend pairs seem to have the greatest similarity in the genes that are responsible for a sense of smell and they show the most difference in immunity-related genes. Friendship entails spending a lot of time together and looking out for each other. Odors are strong behavioral cues in human psychology and people with similar olfactory preferences might like to prefer living or hanging out in similar environments. Likewise, it is potentially a big advantage that friends don’t get infected from the same microbes at the same times, so that one of them can take care of the other. As much as these anthropological implications are merely speculations with many caveats – and despite there being many obvious social, ethnical, and cultural factors that help determine friendships – the genetic basis of friendship and other social interactions may hold answers to at least some of the mysteries of human behavior.

If we consider human nature as a book, the encoded information contained within, together with all the elements of inner and outer environments (bio-psycho-socio-cultural), becomes meaningful and functional. This is because each book has a visible structure composed of letters (semiotic DNA sequence) and a manifested meaning (semantic web) in a particular environment. From this point of view, genes should not be seen as mandatory codes, but should be considered as similar to the art of marbling (or ebru, which is the making of different patterns on a fluid by small vibrations of the ink droplets), for they are created by the united effect of various dynamic forces, and can only be understood accordingly. Human willpower and responsibility will also gain meaning and value when they are analyzed within the framework of the reaction intervals presented within the motifs of human nature which are shaped by the mutual effects genes and cultural factors have on each other. In this sense, human nature and culture should be evaluated together. We can organize the factors that determine human behavior and manners under three main titles – genetic, physicochemical environment, and psycho-socio-cultural factors. We can only speculate statistically as to how large or small a role each factor plays in development.

Behaviors like an inclination to crime, having intimate feelings for same sex individuals, cognitive and sensory sharpness, a desire for excitement and risk, or an inclination to addiction cannot be described by one or two genes. For instance, there are many factors (environment, genes) involved in acts of violence. However, one missing and insufficient factor can trigger violence. For instance, the Monoamine oxidase A enzyme is encoded by the MAO-A gene; this enzyme is in charge of degrading neurotransmitter molecules such as dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine (these enable signaling between nerve cells). Depending on the mutations or polymorphisms of this gene, if the enzyme cannot function sufficiently, these individuals display an inclination towards violence and aggressive behavior. But if the person is aware of the situation and gets educational support from others, this behavior can be controlled.

Similarly, every person has a variable degree of genes that put them at risk for cancer. If these genes are activated via environmental factors – such as smoking, poor nutrition, mutagens, carcinogens – cancer may develop. On the other hand, if a person is lacking the cancer-causing genes or has low inclination towards cancer, such a person may not get cancer, even if he or she is a smoker. Similar statements can be made for genes associated with addictions, sexual perversions, and violent tendencies. More significantly, we can produce more value and meaning out of behavior-related genes when we evaluate them according to their context, position, and other factors, along with their relations to other genes. That is to say, there is a complicated network of factors that shape behavior. That’s why a DNA sequence alone cannot determine, all by itself, the development of emotions and manners, skills, and personality. In other words, phenotype can never be predicted 100% just by the interpretation of genetic information.

Brain and personality development is a multi-faceted, exposome mystery. From the start of pregnancy, especially throughout the preschool era, everything one is exposed to, and the way those events shape one’s nature, is called exposome. This can include subconscious events, for all sorts of personal history plays a role in such development. The connections of 1011 neuron cells that exist in an average human brain are not only determined by genes. Human DNA contains 6.2 x 109 nucleotide (letter), or information. Reading and using this raw information depends on many factors. Neurons can establish new connections via internal and external stimuli, while on the other hand, the number of neuron cells and connection networks can be changed by the neurochemical substances and hormones that they synthesize. All of the information required to define fine details in the motifs and connections of brain cells is not present in the genome. Mere environmental factors are not enough to complement this missing information.

Aside from these, many factors play a role in brain development and function. When the ends of axons and dendrites extend, they do so by recognizing nanomolecules that guide them all the way to the target organ or region. They happen to make minor changes and deviations during this extension. These changes are extreme enough that this extension is part deterministic and part trial and error. They reach the target through a statistically systemic algorithm but with a certainty less than 100%. Axons that are extended from eyes to the brain have a 1% possibility of taking a wrong turn at optic chiasm, and therefore not reaching the brain or arriving at the wrong region of it. However, there are also signalization systems built in our brains that recognize and correct these errors. If axons cannot receive the correct signals from target neurons, they get degraded. And sometimes a neuron of the axon terminates itself. These observations clearly show that brain development does not take place by a molecular program that is predetermined down to the minutest details but rather through a flexible program open to changes and errors.

This flexible program is explained by materialistic philosophy as “chance,” which basically means being in the right place at the right time to encounter the right factors. The same program, in religious literature, is explained by factors known as fate, kismet, destiny, divine blessing, and grant. Aside from that, there are also certain uncontrollable activations and a genetic background in the brain that are involved before we start a conscious action. From this perspective, motifs generated by biological and genetic inclinations set the infrastructure for the freedom of decision making and self-determination. Since our thoughts, emotions, and acts are formed within the neurogenetic and neurochemical construct of the brain, the motif that is created by the background here generates inclinations for specific acts and behaviors. In other words, events that take place in our brain chemistry during the fetal period and early childhood years are significant determinants of human development. The human brain can function in a state with willpower and consciousness, but can also function automatically, without consciousness. Briefly, it is through our genes that the framework of what we can achieve, our reaction intervals and threshold values are determined, and the possibility of an act is indicated. But the boundaries of the final decision are determined via statistical possibilities as a result of a person’s interaction with their environment. Therefore the boundary is not determined in a mandatory fashion, but via external dynamics (like manners, beliefs, or moral nourishment).

Human willpower is our capacity and strength to make free decisions and selections under the effects of spiritual, genetic, and environmental frameworks (endophenotype). The decisions and selections cannot take place independently from the sources nourishing one’s metaphysical world, cultural circles, or from the impact of neurochemicals in the brain and our hormones. “God burdens no soul except within its capacity” (2:286) is a sign of mercy and compassion from the Qur’an, indicating that the field of action and boundaries of the human willpower are determined based on multiple factors and wise causes. Producing customized religious rulings according to one’s natural strengths and weaknesses is also a very meaningful legal action in Islamic law. It is, in a sense, an acknowledgement that everyone has trials and experiences that are different than others’.

Humans have responsibilities within defined, limited conditions, and they can only make decisions within those permissible intervals of conditions and the constraints of their natural dispositions. If we can analyze human actions in a model that looks into their dispositions, cultural environments, genetic inclinations, and spiritual and moral nourishment, then we can attain better results in the education and character development of human beings.

Each factor mentioned above affects the child’s sexual separation and differentiation to various degrees. Misbehaviors during sexual development may emerge as a result of a complex mosaic of biological, psychological, sociocultural factors. There is not a complete consensus around the main reasons for this, yet each researcher favors one factor in the light of their expertise and ideological choices. However, objective observations and research point out that the quality of relationship between the parents and children is very influential in this matter. The display of unhealthy sexual inclinations stems from a negative background where there is not enough parent-child relationships to help the child develop. In families of children with strange sexual behaviors, a suppressive, excessively controlling model of mother and a distant, aggressive model of a father who resorts to violence are often found to exist. That is why many problems with intimacy and sex that occur later in life can be viewed as a developmental ailment and a problem of insufficient parental communication rather than a mandatory genetic phenomenon.

Various problems can arise when healthy differentiation and separation do not take place during a child’s development. A child, in the beginning, is like a part of the mother. If differentiated by detachment from the mother, and from her compassion and care, a child struggles to develop a healthy sense of ego. Such a child becomes inclined to develop a personality that is dependent, passive, and lacking sufficient confidence.

Research clearly states that each child is born with different inclinations and threshold values that are determined genetically and hormonally for each of his or her possible characters and behaviors. These potential inclinations and threshold values can surface depending on internal and external stimuli and educational styles. Even though both genders carry hormones belonging to each other naturally, during development one steps forward upon expression of encoded gender genes. When it comes to displaying sexual abnormalities, everybody is, genetically speaking, a dry log or a wet log. A dry log can easily catch fire, a wet one does not. However, it is the responsibility of society and parents to provide a spark-free environment for the dry log. Spiritual and biological nourishment during the developmental process are found to be significantly influential in diseases and aging, in disorders of character development, and in anomalies in sexual behaviors. When proper measures are taken timely, via suitable environments and educational modes, the possible surfacing of behavioral pathologies may be prevented or reduced for children potentially at risk. Through correct guidance and education, the expression and regulation of genes can be altered and managed, controlling these naturally present inclinations.

Cezmi Aydin is a freelance writer in natural sciences.

References

• Alper, Joseph S. (1998). “Genes, free will, and criminal responsibility.” Soc. Sci. Med. Vol. 46, No. 12, pp. 1599 1611
• Meyer, Lia Midori Nascimento, Gilberto Cafezeiro Bomfim, Charbel Nino El-Hani. 2011. “How to Understand the Gene in the Twenty-First Century?” Sci & Educ. DOI 10.1007/s11191-011-9390-z
• Levitt, Mairi and Neil Manson. 2007. “My Genes Made Me Do It? The Implications of Behavioural Genetics for Responsibility and Blame.” Health Care Anal. 15, pp. 33–40.
• Richardson, Brian. 2011. “What’s wrong with me? Coming to terms with same sex attraction.” Nursing Children 24 and Young People. October 2011. Volume 23. Number 8. pp. 22-24.
• William J. Jenkins. 2010. “Can Anyone Tell Me Why I’m Gay? What Research Suggests Regarding The Origins of Sexual Orientation.” North American Journal of Psychology, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 2. pp. 279-296.
• Botz-Bornstein, Thorsten. 2010. “Genes, memes, and the Chinese concept of wen: toward a nature/culture model of genetics.” Philosophy East & West Vol. 60, No. 2. April 2010. University of Hawaii Press, pp. 167–186.

“Good grades pay off literally. Teachers have long said that success is its own reward. But these days, some students are finding that good grades can bring them cash and luxury gifts… Baltimore schools chief Andres Alonso last week promised to spend more than $935,000 to give high school students as much as $110 each to improve their scores on state graduation exams… The most ambitious experiment began in September, when seven states-Arkansas, Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington-won spots in an Exxon/Mobil-funded program that, in most cases, pays students $100 for each passing grade on advanced placement (AP) college-prep exams.” (USA Today, 01/27/2008)

The above is just one example of how some educators have developed additional incentives to motivate their students in hopes of them increasing their performance in school. A majority of students have gone through educational systems in which such rewards are present, albeit not as extreme as in the example above. In such systems, money, student awards, honorary degrees or advanced placement opportunities aim to improve student performance and motivation toward meeting expected goals through increased competition. Some of these rewards may not be tangible: simple praise, public appreciation and positive feedbacks are examples of intangible or verbal rewards. Both tangible and intangible rewards are advocated and implemented by many educators. Today they constitute a crucial part of our educational system. The reasoning behind rewarding or praising students is simple: If one reinforces a behavior by bestowing a reward for it, it is believed that behavior is more likely to be developed and maintained by the recipients of the reward, but is this really the case?

Some psychologists, known as behaviorists, believe that human nature is utilitarian: behaviors are influenced by their consequences. The use of reinforcement and punishment to control and manipulate human behavior reflects this view. The former allows educators to increase the likelihood of a behavior, while the latter is employed to decrease its likelihood. They argue that one can improve and nurture a particular behavior through reinforcement. An educator with a behaviorist point of view, therefore, believes that learning can be achieved in part by reinforcing desired behaviors with rewards, medals, degrees, grades or praises.

Even though these concepts have been valued and applied widely by many educators for decades, there are some psychologists and educators that do not agree with the current use of either tangible or verbal rewards for educational purposes. Their reasoning is based in part on motivation theory. According to motivation theory, people are motivated by either extrinsic or intrinsic drives. Extrinsic motivation is defined as any reinforcement to support, develop or maintain a behavior provided by external conditions, such as rewarding a student with money or an award. Intrinsic motivation, in contrast, implies doing an activity for its own sake because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable. The most important distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation lies in their source: an internal (intrinsic) versus external (extrinsic) source of motivation. Money, praise, awards or promotions are examples of external motivators, which are used to nurture some behaviors, while inner willingness and ambition, are sources of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

There are educators who advocate motivation theory but disagree with the idea of rewarding their students since they believe that external rewards undermine intrinsic motivation. As students are extrinsically rewarded, they are more likely to lose their intrinsic motivation to sustain their behavior. Empirical studies have shown that students who did not receive any tangible rewards previously will begin to associate their behavior to rewards they have been given, eventually leading students to neglect performing an activity for its own sake when there is no reward present.

Amabile, Hennesey and Grossman (1986) examined the influence of rewards and perceptions of activity on creativity. In their study, children were rewarded with the opportunity to take pictures with instant cameras after they completed a task requiring creativity. For young children this reward was pretty attractive. The perception of the activity was manipulated by calling the activity “play,” “work” or by not specifying its nature. They found that children with the perception of play but without the promise of a reward showed a higher degree of creative performance than other children who were promised a reward. It appears that the “label” of the activity and the existence of rewards influences the creative performance of children. Another phenomenon considered in this study was the variation of the children’s behavior in activities in which they were given choice and no choice at all. The authors showed that in activities where participants were not given options, rewarded participants outperformed non-rewarded participants while non-rewarded participants were superior to rewarded participants in choice situations. There were three educational implications discovered as a result of this study:

1. The way a teacher presents an activity or responsibility counts! The presentation of an activity as “play” is correlated with higher performance than if it is presented as “work” or if its nature is not specified.
2. Rewards may undermine activities requiring intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is important for creativity. Biographies of inventors show that inventions are the result of perennial attempts and thus require a high degree of intrinsic motivation. Therefore, educators need to think twice about whether rewarding their students encourages or suppresses creativity in a given situation.
3. Rewards are detrimental when people have intrinsically chosen to do something, but not necessarily when an action is required of them. This point leaves some room for rewarding students. A good portion of the educational curriculum might be outside of students’ interests. For those kinds of activities, rewards may work to motivate them to participate in these activities, however, if students choose an activity, and if they have already had the motivation to do it, rewards will most likely not improve their performance.

This study shows that educators need to answer the following three questions before deciding whether rewards should be used:

1. Do the students already have intrinsic motivation to complete this activity?
2. Did the students choose to complete this activity?
3. Has someone else already asked or encouraged them to complete this activity?

Another study by Mueller and Dweck (1998) revealed the influence of praise on performance. In a culture of appreciation, praise is expected to encourage people and motivate them to be more successful. This study questions whether praising students is necessary and how praise can affect students. The authors of this study designed six experiments to examine the effects of praise for intelligence and praise for effort and how they influenced the participants. The authors discovered that when praising students for their intelligence the students’ achievements and motivation were lower than those students who were praised for their effort. Children whose intelligence was praised cared more about performance goals while children whose effort was praised cared more about learning. Moreover, the students whose intelligence was praised displayed lower levels of task persistence and enjoyment, increased low-ability attributions, and worse task performance when they experienced failure than children praised for their effort. Another crucial result of the study concerns the concept of intelligence. The same group of students, who were praised for their intelligence, considered their intelligence to be a fixed trait whereas the other group considered it a flexible trait. While the first group (students who were praised for their intelligence) tried to look smart even by sacrificing learning, the second group (students who were praised for effort) attempted to learn new things even if doing so was difficult or risky. Another interesting result was in the discrepancy in performance between the two groups of students when they encountered difficulty in their tasks. The study found that the performance of the students in the first group was impaired in comparison to the second group whose performance increased.

Considering the controversy surrounding rewarding versus not rewarding, the authors of this study focused on the issue of “what to praise.” Praising some traits such as intelligence, ability or creativity might be detrimental for the traits’ continuity in students while praise for endeavoring towards utilizing their intelligence; creativity or any other ability appears to increase the likelihood of learning. This issue raises some serious questions about the current practices of gifted education. Today, most education systems in the United States and other countries “identify” gifted students through tests and other means of determining intelligence, some even group students in separate classes. These students are well aware why they are being treated in this way. In other words, the system itself is continuously providing implicit rewards for the students identified as gifted. From Dweck’s point of view, this policy would impair learning because the student’s performance is not rewarded, while their “intelligence” is.

Another important question raised in this study is the “appropriate time of rewarding.” In research by Kamins and Dweck (1999), the influence of praise and criticism was observed in several ways: when directed variously toward the person performing an activity, toward the process of the activity itself, and toward the activity’s outcome. In their research some of the participants were praised with “I’m very proud of you”; some as “That’s the right way to do it,” whereas others were told: “You found a good way to do it, can you think of other ways that may also work?” When these groups were compared, the researchers found that the process-praised group was superior in rating the products of their work in comparison to the outcome-praised group. It was also noticed in that participants that were members of the process-praised group had increased self-esteem and were more persistent than the other groups. Those findings were the same when criticism was used in place of praise. The lesson to take from this research is clear: we should provide feedback, praise or criticism, about the process rather than the person and the end product.

There are other side effects of rewarding students. When we reward, we actually teach two different things in a very subtle way. First, we teach the student to do something for the purpose of another thing rather than for its own sake. Second, we teach the student not to do anything for free. Both of these have important drawbacks: we kill their enthusiasm and intrinsic motivation because they have been given another reason to do their activities and we implicitly redirect their valuation to external things that then could cause them to undervalue the task itself. This means that they will no longer repeat the same behavior when the rewards are discontinued. There is a paradox here. On the one hand, behaviorist psychologists defined learning as an overt change in behavior. Since the behavior (or learning) fades away later along with the rewards, we cannot argue that rewards did make a permanent influence on behavior. On the other hand, by using these methods we teach students to be independent individuals who do not care about others. Especially in today’s conditions, when many jobless, homeless, and hungry people are trying to survive all around the world, self-centered individualism should not be the desired outcome of education. Infusing people with seemingly innocent notions of “money talks” or “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” might function as a rationale for unethical and socially irresponsible behaviors. Educators should not bolster a self-centered individualism by excessively rewarding students. Such rewarding may contribute to the kind of irresponsibility that allows for the kinds of unwise decisions that lead us to the current recession.

The overall point that I have advocated in this article is not an argument strictly against rewarding. Rather, knowing more about the individual, the conditions, and possible consequences related to rewards are vital for an effective education. How can this be achieved? An example is the treatment of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) toward a child who was making fun of the Adhan (the Muslim call to prayer). He approached one of them and praised one of them by saying, “What a beautiful voice that you have.” Caressing his hair, he continued by asking the boy “Would you mind to give the call to the prayer in the masjid with such a beautiful voice?” He took the child to the masjid and this child, known as Abu Mansura, later became a well-known muezzin (the individual who makes the Muslim call to prayer). This example stands as evidence of the importance of rewarding. On the other hand, in traditional Sufi thought, the purpose of praying and good works is not merely entering Heaven or avoiding Hell, instead, acquiring the acceptance and approval of God is seen as the ultimate goal for a person. Such a purpose may not apply to everyone, because the majority of people may need a tangible reward to do something, just like majority of students want to achieve a certain goal primarily in order to gain rewards, however, higher levels of spirituality can be developed toward an overarching goal that can be achieved by only a select few. Therefore, these two examples do not in fact conflict. The messages derived from educational and psychological literature, as well as religious teachings, seems to converge, even though rewards may help most people to perform better, rewarding is not helpful and even detrimental to a minority group of people who already display high levels of motivation and ambition to achieve.

As a result, rewarding is not necessarily helpful or detrimental. Educators should give up applying their ready-made methods to all students. Ideally, intrinsically motivated students should not receive external rewards because this would switch their focus to material prizes. When needed, educators should try to provide feedback directed toward the process rather than the outcome or the person. Also, they should foster student’s efforts rather than their ability. The decision about rewarding should be based on knowledge regarding the person to be rewarded, the target or direction, and even the timing of the reward. Otherwise, for some individuals the rewards might produce an effect diametrically opposed to its intended purpose.

References

• Skinner, B. F. 1953, Science and Human Behavior. New York: The Free Press.
• Kamins, M. L. & Dweck, C. S. 1999. “Person versus process praise and criticism: Implications for contingent self-worth and coping.” Developmental Psychology, 35, 835-847.
• Mueller, C. M. and Dweck, C. S. 1998. “Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.
• Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
• Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A. & Grossman, B. S. (1986). “Social Influences on Creativity: The Effects of Contracted-For Reward.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 14-23.

Yet, despite all the attention devoted by academic observers, activists, and policymakers, progress in remedying these still endemic social problems has been limited, uneven, and all too reversible. Why have the efforts of an army of social scientists working over several generations not yielded more tangible progress in combating our most pressing social problems? In this essay, I argue that the lack of a coherent conception of human nature has contributed to the frustrating results of our attempts to advance human society through scientific inquiry. I suggest that greater understanding of the human spirit can contribute to the overarching project of improving the human condition that unites all of the social sciences.

Speaking broadly and simplifying vastly (as limited space necessitates), two meta-paradigms concerning human nature have guided much social science research in the past several decades. On the one hand, there is a rationalist paradigm that theorizes human beings as egoists rationally pursuing their self-interest. This understanding of human nature provides the foundation for the discipline of economics and has become increasingly dominant in political science. In emphasizing that actions follow a “logic of consequences” in which decisions are based on how expected outcomes will affect an individual’s utility, the rationalist paradigm does not consider morality an inherent dimension of human action. In this framework, people are portrayed as largely amoral, only taking normatively proper actions if doing so benefits them personally or if they happen to derive unusually high utility from virtuous behavior due to idiosyncrasies in character.

In political science, the assumptions underlying the rationalist paradigm lead to a rather pessimistic outlook on the likelihood of arriving at morally agreeable outcomes. For instance, there is no reason to believe that a dictator will stop employing violence against his own citizens just because the international community urges that it is the right thing to do; rather, such behavior will continue until the leader’s incentive structure changes, making political repression too costly to continue. However, characterizing people as rational actors need not entail such a bleak outlook. In economics, for example, there seems to be an almost axiomatic faith in Adam Smith’s notion that the rational pursuit of self-interest benefits the entire collectivity.

In contrast to the rationalist approach, there is a normative paradigm that conceives of human beings as primarily concerned with aligning their actions to standards of appropriateness for particular roles and identities in different social situations. While the rationalist paradigm thrives in economics and political science, the normative paradigm is most prevalent in sociology. From this perspective, people are less concerned with doing whatever it takes to achieve their aims than with determining which actions are prescribed for given circumstances and behaving accordingly. In this way, actors do what is perceived as right for its own sake, operating according to a “logic of appropriateness” rather than a “logic of consequences.” In a sharp contrast to the amoral egoists that populate rationalist models of the world, human actors in the normative paradigm are conceived of as fundamentally moral beings, deeply influenced by what their communities consider right and proper.

While acknowledging the potential for a gap between standards of appropriate behavior and the capacity to adhere to those standards in practice, the normative paradigm tends towards an optimistic estimate of the possibility of achieving morally desirable outcomes. Problematic behavior can be corrected through moral suasion based on clearly articulated normative standards, without necessarily appealing to the self-interest of deviant actors, as in the rationalist paradigm. For instance, pro-democracy international institutions might be able to socialize officials from authoritarian countries into valuing democracy for its own sake, transcending their rational inclination to perpetuate oppressive arrangements.

How can we reconcile these profoundly disparate visions of humanity in analyzing and attempting to remedy social problems? Many acknowledge that social action can follow both the rationalist “logic of consequences” and the normative “logic of appropriateness,” but social theorists have yet to construct a coherent framework that can explain when action might follow one or the other logic. Far too much energy has been expended in unproductive debates in which analysts draw on limited empirical findings to assert the superiority of their favored approach.

To be sure, both paradigms are intuitively plausible, and one can easily find cases that fit the predictions of each. But both approaches are incomplete, and unable on their own to account for the full range of human behavior. The rationalist paradigm offers no explanation for why discourses about norms and morality comprise such an essential part of everyday human experience, while the normative approach fails to account for the pervasiveness of anti-social and immoral behavior. But if we are neither the self-seeking sociopaths envisioned by the rationalist paradigm nor the perfectly socialized automatons imagined by the normative paradigm, then who are we?

I suggest that social scientific analysis and policymaking might be well served by drawing on conceptions of human nature that derive more from the inherited wisdom of religious traditions and less from the abstract deductions of contemporary theoretical paradigms. The perspective I advocate takes up a broad theme of the Abrahamic faiths – the universal corruptibility of the human spirit, beginning with the transgressions of the very first human beings in the story of the Garden of Eden. In other words, I argue that it is analytically useful for social science research to conceptualize human beings as sinners.

With this characterization, I suggest that people are highly aware of and concerned with the normative prescriptions of the various social groupings to which they belong, and typically act to uphold and reinforce these standards of behavior. However, as the fallible creatures that we are, we fall prey to a range of spiritual lapses that lead us to use to violate even our most sacred moral codes. Common-sense reflection on the historical record of human behavior can shed light on how our penchant for sinfulness expresses itself. We have shown that we disregard the lives of others in the pursuit of profit and power. We dehumanize and oppress those whom we perceive as different from ourselves. We grow comfortable in positions of wealth and influence, protecting our own standing against changes that would benefit the rest of society. We think only of our own short-term gain rather than our long-term responsibilities to those who will come after us. We are indifferent to the suffering of strangers. We break promises, tell lies, and act hypocritically. We take for granted and hurt the ones we love.

Of course, our propensity for sinful behavior does not mean that we are only capable of depravity. Indeed, most of the time we follow the moral standards of our communities in an unreflective, straightforward fashion. And we are certainly capable of deep compassion and heroic self-sacrifice. But our spiritual imperfection means that we all have an inherent potential to stray from a righteous path, especially during extreme conditions like warfare, political instability, poverty, and economic depression. This potential is universal and timeless, and exists within men and women, rich and poor, traditional and modern, educated and illiterate, believer and skeptic alike. The exact nature of our vices, and the extent to which they impact other people, might vary according to our social positions (a prince’s failings can cause greater harm than a pauper’s), but corruptibility is something we all share.

Imagining human beings as sinners makes sense of the paradoxical views of humanity offered by the rationalist and normative paradigms while overcoming their limitations. This perspective incorporates the normative paradigm’s insight that people care about upholding the standards of appropriateness of their communities, but sheds the naïve expectation that they will almost automatically abide by these standards. This perspective also accepts the rationalist paradigm’s premise that people often engage in aberrant, self-serving action. However, while the rationalist paradigm suggests that people pursue their own satisfaction without considering the normative implications of their behavior, the view of humans as sinners recognizes that people generally aspire towards decency, even if they are sometimes susceptible to moral breakdown. Eschewing firm a priori assumptions about people’s inclination towards normatively appropriate behavior, the spiritual paradigm I propose starts from acknowledging our demonstrated capacity for both upstanding and immoral behavior. A social science research program built upon such a vision of humanity would aim to investigate the social conditions under which people engage in different types of behavior – virtuous and vicious – and draw upon this knowledge to design policies that will better confront the most lasting and pernicious social problems.

An inadequate understanding of humankind’s spiritual character can lead to two types of problems that have plagued modern attempts to shape our societies for the better. First, we often craft policies that rest on naïve assumptions about human nature, and which could only work in practice if we were saints rather than sinners. For instance, a laissez faire approach to economic regulation stems from the notion that allowing people to freely pursue their economic self-interest leads the economy to thrive. But this position underestimates the extent to which economic actors, left unchecked, are prone to greedy or shortsighted behavior that can harm society as a whole. The current financial crisis resulted from the creation of high-risk financial instruments that led consumers to take on mortgages they could not afford and companies to over-invest in dubious mortgage-backed securities. These policies enriched the finance industry and expanded the ranks of homeowners in the short-term, but the bursting of the housing bubble led to an epidemic of foreclosures, a stock market crash, a drying up of credit, and a global economic recession.

The policy of abstinence-only sex education is another case in which the likelihood of virtue is overestimated. This policy relies on the sexual restraint of young people to reduce pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections among teenagers. Such programs have been found to be ineffective because they fail to appreciate the difficulty of resisting the temptation to engage in risky sexual behavior for even the most steadfast advocates of abstinence. These examples suggest that policies too dependent on the proper behavior of those involved will tend not to be very successful.

A second problem deriving from our inadequate understanding of human nature is our tendency to divide the world into rigid categories of those who are righteous and those who are wicked, often succumbing to the hubristic assumption that God is on our side. Rather than recognizing that we are all equal in our potential for moral failure, we forget our own sinfulness, with the ironic result that those most ostensibly committed to social progress along Enlightenment principles can be guilty of the most brutal inhumanity.

Idealistic political movements have frequently illustrated such a dynamic. The French Revolution, for instance, produced the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789, proclaiming liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression to be natural rights. Just a few years later, Robespierre’s Committee for Public Safety launched a program of arbitrary executions to protect the revolutionary government from the perceived threat of internal enemies, an absurd blasphemy of the Revolution’s foundational principles. Similarly, the vanguard of the Bolshevik Revolution viewed itself as leading the world towards a communist future that would eradicate inequality and establish the conditions for universal human flourishing. Yet this project devolved into a paranoid police state that imprisoned and executed millions of kulaks, Cossacks, and other class enemies for the sake of the unquestionably righteous Revolution.

As casual observers of history, we tend to attribute such atrocities to the uncommonly evil character of the key figures involved: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. But such horrors as chattel slavery, colonialism, the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and the Darfur crisis are not simply the work of a single monstrous leader or a few bad apples. They require many hands, and arise from an all-too-human capacity to inflict harm on others, to be overcome with hatred, to turn a blind eye to suffering and injustice – in short, to be inhumane. The urge to dissociate ourselves from such evils is powerful, as we like to think of ourselves as good people, incapable of such savagery. But the history of human suffering is the story of allegedly good people doing terrible things to each other. Thus, we must accept any sin committed by another person as potentially one of our own.

Treading a righteous path – as individuals, as corporations, as nations – is difficult, but certainly not impossible. Bringing our aspirations for values like equality, liberty, and peace closer to fruition requires not just technical knowledge, but also attention to how the spiritual character of human beings shapes the implementation and effectiveness of policy initiatives. When we acknowledge the darker aspects of our nature, the design of policies becomes a matter of identifying and protecting against the sources of temptation we may face.

The structure of American political institutions might serve to illustrate a well-crafted policy in this regard. Wary of the concentration of power in the hands of any one entity, the drafters of American institutions dispersed authority among three distinct branches of government. While members of each branch have worked to enhance their own power, the separation of powers ensures an ongoing wrangling between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, the result being that no one branch can accumulate absolute authority. Instead of trusting political actors to refrain from power seeking, the founders anticipated the temptation to extend one’s reach and devised mechanisms to check that tendency. In this way, democratic rule has survived for over two centuries.

The modern social sciences offer an impressive array of techniques for acquiring systematic knowledge about human societies. But scientific knowledge will not lead the world on a linear march of progress if not coupled with an honest and accurate reckoning of human nature. Turning with humility to the insights into the human spirit offered by religious traditions may be the best way to appreciate and temper the shortcomings we have shared from the beginning.

P. Geoffrey Bakken is PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of Wisconsin.

The example given above-not stealing customers’ money versus not being a rich person-is just one possible case among others which human beings feel tension because of conflicting cognitions. Most people have personal beliefs, principles, and values shaping their lives fundamentally. Psychologists use the concept of cognition to imply all of these factors that guide our choices. Cognitions regulate our lives at any moment regardless of our consciousness of them. For instance, some people could venture everything to have more money because they have a cognition whispering “money, money, money,” or others can sacrifice everything for the sake of beliefs because of their cognition, “I believe therefore I am.” Even though human beings feel good when these cognitions drive us to success, good decisions, and a satisfying life, they turn out to be a source of frustration when a certain cognition conflicts with another one. In such cases, what we usually do is to find a way to resolve the conflict because we do not like to live with this tension. How then can we cope with this conflict?

The most common attitude under such circumstances is “self-justification.” If we turn to our example, Peter chose one of the two alternatives: continue to steal his customers’ money in order to become a rich person. Now he must find a good reason to justify himself and reduce his inner conflict:

“Not stealing is not the only way of being an honest person. You cannot be a bad guy just because of one unique behavior in your life, given that other people are also committing such sins, even worse sometimes.”

“My customers are the richest people in the State; it is not greed if I want them to share some of their money. Actually, they do not deserve it at all.”

“I did that to ensure the future happiness of my family; I know that making your family happy is more important than being honest.”

There can be many other reasons or justifications for such a behavior. The truth is that, Peter is trying to convince himself about his behavior. Although people’s attempts to convince themselves are not necessarily rational, they try to rationalize their behaviors by changing their cognitions or adding new ones.

All of the above are in the simple processes of Leon Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance. He contends that when an individual has two or more cognitions (beliefs, opinions, ideas etc.) which are inconsistent with each other, then tension emerges and people attempt to reduce this tension. How can the tension be reduced? The answer is through changing one or both cognitions or by adding new cognitions to alleviate discrepancies between cognitions. Our behaviors in such situations will determine the way we behave the next time we encounter a similar situation. Our ultimate behavior will depend on the strength of one’s cognitions (Aronson, 2004). If being a rich person is more important than not being greedy, a person is more likely to choose to steal money.

It is critical that the choice does not have to be right or rational. Let’s remember Peter’s excuses for stealing. He tended to believe that stealing was not as bad as he thought before because he found some justifications. Now he seems to feel better, but what about the next step? Most probably, he will continue to steal. As one can easily see, dissonance reduction is mostly an irrational behavior. Apparently, these irrational behaviors help people to defend their “self” or “ego.” Through the help of these irrational beliefs, people continue to define themselves as if they are good, smart, decent, or generous people. The underlying motive is the need for self-justification.

Cognitive dissonance from the perspective of religion

There are many musts and must-nots in a believer’s mind. One common practice of dissonance reduction appears at a point where one must choose between committing a sin or making a righteous decision. While preaching or reading holy books nurtures spiritual “cognitions” in a religious mind, obeying concupiscence and chasing essentially worldly goals will weaken this. After every sin that a believer committed, the battle of the cognitions starts between “I am a religious guy” and “I committed a sin, therefore I am not a decent person.” Since these cognitions cannot live peacefully together in a religious mind, one of the conflicting cognitions will grow out of this battle.

This process meshes with a religious idea that “Within each sin is a path leading to unbelief” (Nursi, The Second Gleam). If a person insists on performing a sinful act, he starts to disdain his sin. After a while, as he keeps behaving in the same manner, he becomes addicted to the sin and tends to see it as a normal act. Instead of acknowledging that the sins are witnessed by the angels and seen by God, an unrighteous man may like the idea that they may not exist at all, which is again comforting. With that idea, the cognition of “I am a religious person” is surpassed by a new cognition, “Maybe the religion that I accepted has some flaws” or “is questionable” which were added to relieve the pain arising from the cognition “I am not a good person.” From this point of view, people’s preferences about their beliefs are not independent of their behaviors which foster or challenge their religious cognitions.

One’s tendency to justify himself is usual but may not be what ought-to-be from the moral point of view. As people justify themselves, they will ignore whatever is wrong with their behaviors or cognitions, which will make them insensitive. Going beyond psychology’s objective description of human beings as rationalizing or justifying beings, religious sources suggest rejecting self-justification in most of cases. The Qur’an quotes the Prophet Joseph: “Yet I do not claim my self free of error, for assuredly the human carnal soul always commands evil, except that my Lord has mercy. Surely my Lord is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate” (Yusuf 12:53). This means, self-awareness about the conflicting cognitions is critical for human beings. When the person has inconsistent cognitions, choosing the option that does not solely serve to justify himself will prevent the person from going toward unbelief. Christianity also pointed to the importance of facing up to our sins: “I acknowledged my sin to You, and in my iniquity I have not hidden. I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’ and You forgave the iniquity of my sin” (Psalms 32:5).

Between the good and bad

Human cognitions determine their choices and actions, which in turn nurture, shape or weaken our cognitions. Repeating a sin a second time is easier than the first time, and we feel less dissonance because cognitions creating dissonance are replaced by those that bring inner comfort. People who exhibit extremely deviant and sociopathic behaviors should be reconsidered from this point of view. Extremely deviant behaviors should be considered a series of earlier choices which gradually led to the ultimate misconduct rather than the consequence of a unique decision made at a specific time.

Another possible implication of the theory of cognitive dissonance is the difficulty with judging absolute good or bad. Given the fact that cognitions may become weaker or stronger, personal views on the appropriateness of behaviors are subject to change. Human cognitions are potential mechanisms that lead one to behave in a certain way. Therefore, deviant behaviors might have a long history fed by the cognitions which turn out to be one’s rationale for inappropriate behaviors. As a result, cognitive dissonance uncovers the gray area between the continuum of good and bad through which human beings swing all the time.

Conclusion

Cognitive dissonance theory provides convincing explanations about how human beings make their decisions and behave in a moral or immoral manner. Also, it brings a resourceful perspective to illuminate spiritual experiences. It successfully explains how people swing on the path from good to bad and vice versa instead of considering them as dwelling on two discrete entities. Awareness of the above-mentioned processes is critical to increase self-awareness.

One last comment should be made about the role of conscience in cognitive dissonance. Although cognitive dissonance theory successfully explains many cognitive processes, a mental faculty that is responsible for recognizing the discrepancy in our cognitions and regulating the balance between them is conscience. However, psychology’s account of conscience is rather limited and inconclusive. Psychology offers evidence of the way human beings behave in dissonant situations. Religious resources, however, provide prescriptive guidelines to remain on the right track. As in the case of this unique theory, understanding the theories of psychology as well as making sense of them in the light of religious texts provides individuals with a heightened self-awareness.

References

• Aronson, E. 2004. The Social Animal, 9th edition, Worth Publishers: New York, NY
• Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Answer: Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, prayed that his community not be completely eradicated from the face of the earth, that they not suffer from pervasive famine, and not be attacked by an enemy which could destroy the great majority of believers; he said that his wishes had been granted. Working from this hadith, we can say that his community will not be subjected to general destruction, nor will they remain under the sovereignty of others permanently. However, the Prophet also reported in the same hadith that a similar prayer that he made for God’s prevention of bloodshed and mischief among his community was not granted (Muslim, Fitan, 19/20).

As to why this last prayer was not accepted, it can perhaps be argued that what was asked for lies within the capacity of human willpower. Humans are blessed with reason and mental capacity. It is not congruent with human dignity to be herded to and fro or to be gathered here and there, against their will. Human beings can exercise their volition and seek the possibility to live together with others peacefully.

“We try (test) people through one another”

By mentioning repeatedly in a number of verses (An’am 6:53) that people will be tested through one another, God warns the Muslim community of this grave threat that might loom over them. God Almighty puts us in trial in a variety of ways; sometimes with illness, sometimes with misfortune, sometimes through our worship, and at other times with our vulnerability to sins. Trying some of us through other people is another means of testing. Every individual person is unique; God created each of us like a separate species in and of itself. We all have different personalities; no one is like another person. By creating every one so different God reveals the manifestations of His beautiful names and glorified attributes and thus puts us through a trial with a promise of a reward for those who are successful. This test requires acknowledgement of these differences in the nature of each person; it is with this awareness that everyone should seek ways to coexist, despite all our differences.

It is reported that Bediuzzaman Said Nursi once praised one of his students and his good skills in his writing to another of his students. He said: “His writing is better than yours.” Upon this, which was also a kind of trial, his student remarked that he was pleased to hear this; he showed no sign of discontent. Bediuzzaman realized that this student was truly sincere in his words. It may not be possible that everyone has the same level of ease at heart in the face of such a situation; we should not expect such a purity of conscience from all. Yet, it is still in our hands to control our behavior.

We should also never forget that a person who displays bad behavior is not necessarily a bad person in all their aspects. Labeling someone thus, especially if that person is an observant believer, is a distorted perspective and reflects one’s own contempt. Moreover, discrediting another believer in such a way means that the discreditor is actually the one who is on the wrong path; he or she might suffer a blow from that person, or a severe dispute might occur. So, instead of making an immediate judgment about another person, it is always best to think of a way to resolve the dispute and to come to terms. The person who takes the first step and apologizes for what has happened can be considered to be a hero. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, also points out that when two people are angry with one another, the virtuous one is the one who makes the first greeting (Bukhari, Adab, 62). The following verse in the Qur’an enjoins believers as follows:

Goodness and evil can never be equal. Repel evil with what is better (or best). Then see: the one between whom and you there was enmity has become a bosom friend. (Fussilat 41:34)

In contradiction of divine commands

I deeply regret and sometimes feel great sorrow when such weaknesses and lack of integrity surface, despite the above-mentioned divine instructions and warnings. It is not uncommon to come across two people, who normally meet each other at spiritual gatherings and discuss issues related with belief, becoming involved in a dispute. This means that such people are unable to perceive the resentment and hatred that is directed towards believers, and the plots that have been devised by antagonist circles obsessed with enmity; these can obstruct many good services. If these plots against and resentment towards believers are trivial matter, then what is significant for them, that their honor and pride were not regarded? So for us, is it truly the case that the denial of God and His Messenger is not a major issue, but a word uttered unfavorably on our behalf is more important?!

What do we value most? We should be aware of the attention that we give to frivolous matters which we unnecessarily overvalue at the expense of many issues of greater magnitude. God has blessed us with reason, and even beyond that, with belief and the ability to comprehend. So, it is imperative that we analyze how people fall out, albeit they share countless common denominators in belief and values. They believe in the same Creator, the same Sovereign, the same Lord, perhaps even follow the same Messenger and religion, and turn in the same direction for prayer; they may even live in the same country and are committed to the same lofty goals, treading on the same path… Hundreds of shared values should unite people, but we may still fall in dispute over matters that are as insignificant as the wings of a fly. If someone curses me, this does not give me the right to respond likewise. For Bediuzzaman, retaliation is a cruel principle.

“If for God the world was worth the wing of a fly, unbelievers would not be allowed to drink even a drop of water” (Tirmidhi, Zuhd, 13). The world is so insignificant that the unbelievers are allowed to drink. If this is the real value of the world, then what significance can some repugnant worldly issues have for friends who fall apart? Can this ever be reconciled with reason?

It is also reported from Hafiz-i Shiradhi that “the world is not a commodity worth disputing.” I believe that no one would consider this to be an exaggeration. Yet, how much are we reflecting this truth into our lives? Thinking over all these, I cannot help but ask myself “for what purpose are we reading, keeping ourselves busy with the Qur’an and the practice of the Prophet, or with the analysis of marginal matters?” Why are we wasting our time quibbling over such matters if they do not help us reach human perfection?

I am sorrowed by those who do not forgive

All of us need rehabilitation; we need to reflect on our integrity and revise our humanity. This is necessary for all of us. It is easy to overemphasize trivial matters and start the gossip that lies at the tip of our tongues; minds and pure hearts are tarnished with the tar of gossip.

Let me give you an example of how important this issue is: if a friend gets up from their seat and leaves the room, and if I infer in my mind or comment openly on this, saying, “I think he is overwhelmed by sleep too much, so he leaves the gathering to sleep somewhere else” he might be hurt if he were to hear this. What would befall me is to ask for his forgiveness the very first moment I came across him. Gossip is a grave sin. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, says that gossip is worse than adultery on the grounds that God can forgive the adulterer if he repents and is determined not to commit the sin again. Nevertheless, a gossiper has to ask forgiveness from the person he or she has gossiped about as well as from God (Bayhaqi, Shuabu’l-iman, 14/255). Gossiping about a person who has a large following might result in a grave sin, for it violates the rights of all those people who admire that person. This is a very delicate matter. Unless we deem what God Almighty enjoins as significant as being significant, then many trivial matters will replace them.

We have serious faults in our belief; it is certainly imperfect. We have huge gaps in our commitments to the basic tenets of belief, both at a personal and social level. We seem not to possess perfect belief in the existence of God and His all-encompassing presence, nor in the fact that His will is superior over all other things, nor in the Hereafter where we will account for all we have done in this world.

I am disappointed with and deeply sorrowed by behavior that does not suit a true believer; indeed, for any weakness in this regard. I am heart-broken by my friends who are unable to forgive one another, by those who seek the errors of others, and by those who keep record of others’ sins like the Angle Scribes, and by those who ignore the good deeds performed by others.

Let us not allow any feelings or thoughts that might damage fellowship to enter even our dreams. If we believe, then let us be prepared to honor even the evil-doers and embrace those who have turned their backs on us. Let us make it our life principle to be without hands against those who strike us and without speech against those who curse us.

The Iberian Peninsula in Europe was such a home for many different nationalities and religions when centuries ago it was Al-Andalus. Quoting from Maria Rosa Menocal, Yukseldi notes that “Al-Andalus (711–1492) was a ‘utopian-like’ society in which Jews and Muslims lived side by side in peace and cooperation in what is now Spain.” There are others who object to this argument, and in this issue Yukseldi presents a panorama of Al-Andalus, discussing the differing views of the tolerant policies Muslims held during their sovereignty.

The atheistic world view nowadays is being propagated by authors like Dawkins and Hitchens. Bayram Yenikaya confronts several of Dawkins’s arguments that he has put forward in his book The God Delusion. Is religion evil? Can we prove God’s existence and non-existence by scientific methods? Yenikaya’s article “Dawkins’ Delusion” is certainly something that must be read if these are questions that you are interested in.

Efforts devoted to exploring Fethullah Gulen’s thought and vision are gaining pace. The latest example of this is the conference in Cairo: Future of Reform in the Muslim World: Comparative Experiences with Fethullah Gulen’s Movement in Turkey. The Fountain was there to observe the three-day conference, and a report on this event is available in the following pages. For those of our readers who are interested in what is known as the Gulen Movement, this report is worth perusing, with its information on this conference that was a first in the Middle East.

Can you draw parallels between human behavior and cancer? Sebnem Unlu believes there are universally governing principles which apply in the human body as well as in our behavior. Unlu informs us that cancer cells are constantly being created, even in a healthy body, but in a healthy body they are destroyed by specialized immune cells. In a similar way, we have to correct our mistakes and sins as quickly as possible, without allowing them to grow like cancer, to destroy our moral integrity.