John Cairns wrote:
So, maybe psycho was an incorrect term.

"... In its modern version, dissonance is a
theory of rationalization in which individuals sucked into stupid or sleazy
behavior will change their opinions to justify and make sense of their
behavior."

Hey, I didn't realize this thread was going to get into politics so quickly!


Milgram showed that the majority of normal individuals will give a supposed
"learner" increasing levels of shock, up to a maximum 450-volt shock labeled
"XXX DANGER STRONG SHOCK." Part of the power of this paradigm is the slow,
graded nature of the shocks, which begin at only 15 volts and increase 15
volts with every mistake the "learner" makes. So close is the grading of
shock levels that, at each level, to recognize something wrong with giving
the next level must imply something wrong with the level already
administered. Slow escalation of hurting others is a slippery slope in which
each act of aggression becomes a reason for more aggression.


Sure, especially with the added reinforcement of social approval for
aggressive or violent acts.


Taken together, group dynamics and the psychology of escalating commitment
go a long way toward explaining how normal people can do awful things.

That's how you take everyday suburban kids who probably love their
puppies and/or kittens etc etc, and turn them into combat infantrymen...
or concentration camp guards.

It's not particularly advanced psychology, it's more like common
sense... and it's been done since before Alexander the Great. In one
way, re-socialing people to do things they normally would not approve of
is "leadership."

The real issue here is not how to get normally-socialized people to kill
or otherwise brutalize each other, but to what purposes that training is
put.

... Throw
in the reward and punishment power of the state, a power that needs move
only a small number of people to do the dirty work against a target class or
race, and even genocide begins to be comprehensible."


Again, the real issue is the underlying moral justification for the
acts. You knew the U.S. Marine Corps purpose was to kill the enemy in
large numbers, right? That's why I say that Lt. Gen. Mattis is *not* a
psycho for his statements, but that he showed bad judgement in making
pretty blatant statements to an audience that does not share his
socialization for killing... a more important question to me is how
he... his fellow generals... and even more importantly, the civilians
who give the Pentagon it's instructions... decide who is to be "the enemy."

Can't find the attribution now, from a long article on the subject.


It's an interesting read, thanks for posting it.

Regards
Doug King