Discussion
Topics Last Day Last Week
Tree View
Documentation
Getting Started
FAQ
Formatting
Troubleshooting
Program Credits
Utilities
New Messages
Keyword Search
Contact
User Profile
Administration
intro.psych (Psyco 105) Discussion: Discussion Feedback: Social Behaviour
By Patricia on Friday, October 30, 1998 - 04:07 pm:
This week, most of all I want to say what a really great effort everyone put in to the discussions and summaries. When I read them I felt that everyone was really interested and engaged in thought about the site itself and many related ideas. Great contributions this week. Hope to see more of the same next week.
Here's an interesting summary:
The adoption of a particular gang's symbols means ultimately that the individual's behavior becomes that of that particular gang. In the web site there is some indication that some gangs are associated with different activities their gang symbols imply certain activities by the individual. Hence the individual is no longer an individual but a part of a team. Example could
be McDonald's; the uniform is a symbol, in which they are supposed to follow certain rules or behaviors. They do not act like individual's they act like a member of a team. In addition, in a place like LA you will see many very poor kids joining gangs, usually they feel they do not have
much choice, but after that, they give up their individual choice. They are expected to act like
and behave like a member of that gang. A great example of another organization is the armed
forces. They are expected to behave in certain ways when they are wearing that uniform. They
are almost part of one entity, they all look as close to the same as possible (shaved heads, or
same style (up for women) the same uniform and some wear hats that obscure the face so its
harder to tell specific features). Unfortunately, this organization has some bad behaviors as well.
Hazing rituals for one (that usually occurs in street gangs and other groups as well) these are
done to make sure the person is part of the team... if you beat the crap or humiliate someone
and they stay they obviously are trust worthy. Also if you don't act like the rest of the gang in all situations, there is a likely hood you won't be trusted. One example is the MyLai massacre, even those who were against the killing did it anyway and some lost complete control over their own actions. There were still members of that team that didn't do anything (two I believe), but there is some wonder how these people were treated by the rest of their regiment after this incedent. Another example is the Canadian Airborne regiment and the Somalia incident. These people probably never would have committed these atrocities on their own, but since they were in the safety of a group, they did it. In addition, the feeling of wanting to be accepted was a big part of it (especially when we see them laughing at others jokes). You can find some information on the Somalia inquiry here:
http://www.magi.com/~jarmst/2ndsep96.htm
And some info on the My Lai Massacre can be found here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/amex/vietnam/trenches/mylai.html