
A man who studies everyday evil - d_a_robson
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150130-the-man-who-studies-evil
======
tjradcliffe
The American psychologist Roy Baumeister has a very good book on evil:
[http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Inside-Human-Violence-
Cruelty/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Inside-Human-Violence-
Cruelty/dp/0805071652/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422680912&sr=8-1&keywords=evil)

My review of it can be found here:
[http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1605](http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1605)

Short version: Baumesiter focuses on data, not imaginary scenarios, which he
correctly identifies as profoundly misleading (which should be no surprise to
anyone paying attention to the past 300 years of scientific history, which has
basically been a monotonous repetition of "Your imagination is a terrible tool
for knowing reality"). He defines and rejects the imaginary "myth of pure
evil" and investigates empirically what causes evil and how it works in the
real--not the imaginary--world.

The causes he identifies are fragile egotism, material gain, utopian idealism,
and sadism (the last is the least, accounting for perhaps 5% of evil acts.) He
backs his claims with data, not imagination, and anyone arguing against him
must bring far more than "it just makes sense to me" as a counter.

I can't recommend this book enough. Is it the last word on the subject? Of
course not: it is science, and therefore open-ended. But it is so much better
than almost anything else you will read on evil that complaining about its
shortcomings looks silly. It is certainly vastly better than the purely
imaginary accounts of evil found in the Bible or the Quran or "A Treatise on
Human Nature", to the extent that they are incidently but convincingly shown
to be completely irrelevant as practical guides to human behaviour.

------
praptak
"even Mother Theresa apparently had a steely side"

Even?
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html)

~~~
ytturbed
Yeah. Another questionable assumption:

>If you had the opportunity to feed harmless bugs into a coffee grinder, would
you enjoy the experience? Even if the bugs had names, and you could hear their
shells painfully crunching?

No doubt their nervous systems transmit pain signals but whether bugs
_experience suffering_ seems like an open question to me.

~~~
girvo
I rationally know that, but I can't bring myself to wilfully destroy life,
even that of an insect, with the sole exception of if something is dangerous.
So I can totally understand the reactions of those who don't have a high
"everyday sadism" score.

~~~
ytturbed
Oh I agree, I'm the same, but I do acknowledge that there's an unsolved
philosophical/scientific problem here, with no good explanations in sight.

And thus I can't equate indifference to the death of insects with sadism.

~~~
tjradcliffe
Whether its sadism or not is independent of the experience of the bug, even if
that question is meaningful. It depends on whether the person committing the
act believes the bug is suffering, and whether they enjoy it on that basis or
some other.

And since the question is open as to what the bug's experience is, there may
also be a tendency for individuals to interpret their behaviours as being
evidence of suffering or not depending on how sadistic they are. Non-sadists
may tend to interpret the bug's behaviour in ways that suggest there isn't any
experience of suffering. Sadists will do the opposite.

It's difficult to see what if any interesting issues the question of the bug's
internal experience could bear on. It's our perception or imagination of that
experience that would seem to be far more important in how the act should be
classified for a given individual.

------
Mz
It's too bad the article did not put more emphasis on this perspective:

 _All of which underlines the false dichotomy of good and evil that Paulhus
has been keen to probe._

For example, surgeons tend to lack empathy. People who are too empathetic
would have a hard time cutting into someone. They would be too squeamish.

Soldiers are also a necessary and important role in the world where the work
isn't "nice" in nature.

~~~
trhway
>For example, surgeons tend to lack empathy. People who are too empathetic
would have a hard time cutting into someone. They would be too squeamish.

lacking and having control over are 2 different things. Former makes a
psychopath, latter - a good surgeon.

~~~
Retra
There's nothing inherently wrong with being a psychopath. The problem is that
they tend to be extremely manipulative and selfish. Of course, if someone
identifies "self" with some larger social project or humanistic goal, then
manipulating people into achieving this goal can be an incredibly valuable
skill.

~~~
Zuider
"Of course, if someone identifies "self" with some larger social project or
humanistic goal"

Such people can be the worst of all. They would have no compunction against
mass slaughter. Utopianism in general has led to great evil because it is
inherently unrealistic, and because it defines itself as the paramount good,
surpassing all other goals, it can be used to rationalize very evil acts.

------
joelthelion
This is very important research. Consistently ignoring our dark side is
bringing us nowhere.

------
harkyns_castle
What a waste of peoples LCD's. Such a load of crap I haven't read in a while.

------
kelukelugames
"The man who..." is beginning to sound like catchy clickbait titles.

~~~
savanaly
Seems accurate in this case, no? The title sets you up to expect to read a
profile of an individual doing some interesting research, and that's pretty
much exactly what we got.

