The Dark Side - Psychology of the Insane

Abstract:

In recent years psychology has tried to uplift the human spirit with lots of popular psychology terms such as, "Positive Psychology" or the numerous books released to tell the masses how to behave to lead a fulfilled successful life from talking about parachutes, ten steps to something, the mired of "how to" titles and much more. Most are nothing but misguided pop psych or a fad of the moment. Can life be as easy as reading the right book and following some basic concepts and everything is going to be OK for you and me? This paper is different, we shall explore the "Dark" side of the human mind - that part that sees disengagement, destruction, vile acts as part of the everyday human psyche that emerges in us all from time to time - that part that finds excitement, glee and pleasure in the dysfunctional part of our existence. How can society reconcile with its dark side? I use the word insane to refer to those in society who oppose the social norm.

Introduction:

First let's examine how we can identify the "Dark Side" of psychological thought and behaviour. We need a measure, to know, what is normal and what is considered abnormal behaviour. Our first measure is social norms; this means in any society of what is considered normal everyday behaviour given a set of circumstances that confront our perception. For example in Western culture to strike another person violently is considered a criminal act and one that is repulsive to a peaceful society. However we condone violence when the person is given societal permissions such as a soldier in the act of war, a policeman in the act of apprehension of a dangerous criminal, a citizen defending his family from a serious threat from another person. These double standards can be misinterpreted in many ways. The soldier who commits war crimes such as genocide, the policeman who uses violence to intimidate a witness while interviewing them or the citizen who violates another persons rights in order to further their own position in some way.

The second measure is a moral one? How do we as a society decide what is right and wrong, who has the power to decide these rights, do laws follow moral conviction or do they become protection of the weak against the strong or the rich against the poor? Most societies agree that killing another human being is against a moral code - it is simply wrong to kill and should be punished by an act of equal severity, by the society that supports the moral legal stance imposed on the masses by its law-makers. To most societies this has been a religious code of conduct such as the 10 commandments of the Christian faith and other such codes from Buddhism to the Muslim Koran. Faith in divine reward and punishment are reflected in the legal language and laws seen as the bedrock of any civilized nation of people. Having accepted these rules why then do people readily deviate from these morals, laws and religious guidelines that allow us all to live in a peaceful society governed by agreed principals of behaviours that protect the individual from danger, hurt and abuse?

The third area of behaviour is that not set down in law or religious concepts but those everyday sets of behaviour the English would refer to as, "manners" or being "polite". The conduct or way of acting that conforms to behaviour accepted as that of a superior member of a society who knows how to conduct themselves in the company of others to a set of standards that are seen as the mark of an advanced civilization. These can sometimes be seen in the etiquette of table manners or a man opening a door for a woman and allowing her to pass first, the recognition of man's duty to protect and defend women. Today in some cultures women's rights have cast doubt of manners towards woman as sexist and therefore demeaning to a woman's independence. Never-the-less manners are seen as the mark of being well-bread and in the upper echelons of a society whether they are traditional Englishness or a Japanese tea ceremony.

Having set out societies differing ways of measuring behaviour either through, law, morals or social acceptable norms humans still manage a wide range of dysfunctional behaviour that often impacts on and influences others to the point where the perpetrators of this behaviour see themselves outside the law, moral codes and etiquette of the rest of society. Sometimes through the feeling of guilt we all recognise when we have transgressed those rules that we see as essential to a well ordered civilization. However there are those other people who feel nothing when faced with dealing out violence, destruction and death against others as merely their right to live without those rules and the freedom to live a life that is determined by nothing more than what they wish to own, possess or destroy.

The Dark-Side:

What posses the man who kicks the dog, when he is frustrated by society that pens his existence. What feelings does he release at that moment when the dog screeches and howls in pain and fright? Why does he smile and wish further harm to the dog and enjoy the sight of an animal in pain? On-lookers feel outraged by his behaviour and sympathy for the defenceless dog for which this man has sought to treat cruelly and without remorse. Who is this man? Why he is all of us from time to time. We all lose our sense of psychological calm and rational thoughts as we grapple with life's unfairness or lack of opportunity. On the other hand - wait - for this man is wealthy, has all his needs fulfilled, yet still feels great delight in kicking and watching the dog suffer at his hands. A sense of power at his ability to inflict pain and the pleasure at feeling superior to other lesser humans whom he sees as incapable of taking what they want and so end up his employees and servants. This superior positional thinking leads to a lack of sympathy or empathy for others as only fools who accept the dominance of his kind as leaders and law-makers.

The above example is too give an insight into a behaviour that breaks our three measures of social norms, law (hurting a defenceless animal) moral (the taboo on senseless behaviour seen as wrong doing) socially acceptable behaviour, (while everyone might lose their temper and kick their dog, most will feel pangs of guilt and remorse). Here however we meet people who feel no guilt, no remorse and see themselves as exempt from laws they do not agree with. In England fox-hunting was a cruel sport mostly carried out by intelligent, professional, wealthy men and women? Yet these same people claimed a right to hunt and destroy a defenceless animal for nothing more than a good time as seeing their hounds rip apart and devour a fox. Even though the majority of English people voted on numerous occasions to ban this sport it took several years of campaigning to get this put into law. Now fox-hunting is an illegal activity however these same people continue to flout the law and hunt under local by-laws that have yet to catch up with national lawmaking. These people know what they are doing is illegal, immoral and against social norms as defined by majority opinion. Yet they claim they are superior parts of society and therefore above the day to day moral concerns of the ordinary masses. The surprising thing is in England these people are members of parliament, police, judges and others who control aspects of society in England such as estate owners (land given often by Royal consent in the past by robbing the rightful land of the poor). In others words the very people who should set an example to society are the same ones flaunting the law and socially acceptable behaviour.

In another example we have to look at the criminal. Criminals are often seen as the rejects of society as they have come from flawed backgrounds, disadvantaged families and poor parental upbringing. Yet in society the largest harm done to the public is often from corporate crime such as pension fund embezzlement, stocks and shares insider trading and theft of assets and wealth by CEO's and government officials. This so-called white-collar crime is often undetected and the hardest to bring to justice. Everyday criminals are more visual to the public as their crimes cause localised distress and make the media cry for police action and civil authority action. Therefore most laws are about visual crime that is easy to understand and comprehend. Punishment of visual crime is also straight forward and dealt with everyday in our courts and media. How do we distinguish between the two types of criminal - the so-called victimless crime of white collar criminals who see no direct victim or the murderer who during an armed robbery kills and maims those who oppose his will to steal what he wants from society and the distress they leave behind?

So what does psychology have to say about the deviants who do not see their actions as a problem to themselves and feel others who do not take control of their lives as weak and therefore deserve to be victims of those who are smarter, stronger or more powerful? The media often cries about the passive masses that accept the status quo and in the same paper would condemn the local person who took the law into their own hands perhaps to avenge some wrong-doing against them or their families? The first area that psychology expounds the reasons behind this dark behaviour of others is "developmental" that upbringing is at the route of this behaviour, that the dog kicker was not loved or cared for in the correct manner. That during their formative years they were subject to cruelty, sexual abuse or lack of social education. That the same transgressors were victims of bullying at school and therefore need to act-out their own frustration on those in society that are weaker than themselves. The question we have to pose here is why some victims, in fact most, go onto being law-abiding citizens and it is only the few that turn into the monsters who kill and maim for reasons of developmental mistakes? At this point many scientists like to point to a genetic factor in behaviour. This old chestnut has been around for some time now. There is evidence amongst violent criminals that they often possess an extra Y chromosome (men) that gives them a high amount of testosterone leading to violent outbursts towards frustrating situations in which they use terror and fear as the key to getting what they need. However as a percentage of violent criminals this is statistically minute even though in the general prison population this may be higher. All genetic research so far has lead to speculation about genetic factors but with no firm evidence to back up the claims. The most often sited evidence is that from twin studies where twins separated at birth have high incidences of similar behaviour and outcomes. Again as a percentage of twins born and studied this evidence is weak for genetic determinism and high for developmental environments being similar and twins experiencing environments that are so accord that it is more likely to be a surprise if they did turn out differently from each other. So if we remove developmental outcomes, genetic predispositions then what makes some people flaunt socially acceptable behaviour and some who comply to everything society demands of them? This then is the propositional position that makes psychology hard to always see as a positive view or a deterministic way of the world and that in fact maybe it is in fact that normal behaviour amongst humans is to be cruel, deceitful, violent and tendency towards criminal behaviour under a variety of circumstances. Those morals are a luxury of a settled society where everyone is equal both economically and in caste or class.

The Psychology of the Survivalist:

There are those particularly in the USA that see the end of society as a real possibility whether they advocate nuclear annihilation (today more likely bio-warfare) or the breakdown of capitalism leading to social chaos and civil strife. These people are often referred to as survivalists. They store weapons against the uncontrollable hordes that would roam the country in the event of civil breakdown and food for the possibility of shortages caused by economic meltdown. (Looking at 2009 in the USA many survivalists would argue they in fact have a good case). The survivalists believe the have a basic right to defend themselves and their families in the case of societal breakdown and lack of protective laws. On occasions these groups come into conflict with existing legal statutes that become enforced by federal authorities such as the FBI. Therefore the survivalist's mentality is while on the one hand in conflict with society and in the other seen as a genuine attempt at controlling ones own fate against future disasters. After all insurance companies survive just on that premise alone - and ironically would be the first not to survive an economic breakdown of capitalism as seen by the failure of many banks in 2008/9 around the world. Today the most popular movies at the box office are disaster films, those where flood, sun-flares, bio-warfare, alien invasion and other catastrophes cause the social breakdown of society. The heroes of these movies are always the resourceful survivalists who through violence protect their kin from all-comers. Why do the public find these people as attractive, as hero's and yet the real survivalists are vilified as public enemies of the status-quo? Judging by the success of these movies ordinary people recognise that the breakdown of society is something that may happen or is if fact inevitable. So they look to these movies as a type of hope for another future that may come about by the demise of their own everyday world.

Psychology as Evolution:

In human history all people started out as survivalists as hunter gatherers roaming the land looking for easy accessible animals for food and warmth. As time goes by we see these societies settle into agro-cultural settlements that create rules, laws, leaders and a moral code. As they develop and grow these settled societies create art, music and religion to compensate for a limited existence within the constrictions of the very society they have formed. From these beginnings land and property become important. The possession of goods and chattels becomes essential to growth. As time goes by these settlements become villages, towns and cities which eventually form countries with boundaries. Survival becomes now the group and not the individual as was human's natural instincts from the beginning of time. However eventually all these societies fade and crumble away. Some for unknown reasons such as the Mayan and other South American civilisations. Most fail as they grow into empires who dominate the weak with a version of their own laws and religions. However one thing history teaches us all is that societies do disappear for all sorts of reasons. (Greek, Roman, Egyptian in the ancient world and British, French, German and Japanese empires in the modern world). All of these societies had one thing in common they did not envisage their own demise. In today's world a European and American could not imagine the fall of the EEC or the USA yet these new modern empires have their own Achilles heal, "Capitalism". Although Karl Marx saw the evils of capitalism and its eventual failure he could not have seen how it would grip the modern world to such a point that wars over oil and gas would dominate the 21st century. Marx however would probably laugh with glee at the failure in 2009 of the banking system based on greed and debt around the first nations of the planet. Most of the failures can be contributed to mismanagement but in fact it was a loss of confidence in the financial system by ordinary people that caused a rush on funds and inability to service crippling debt through high interest rates and little return on investments. When people panic they go into survival mode - they look after themselves first.

The Dark Side Conclusion:

At this junction it is time to conclude from these observations that social norms, laws and morals are actually "not normal" for human beings and that society often forces group behaviour based on what the powerful want over the powerless. That in fact survivalist mentality is our norm and that what society tries to do in fact is control the wild beast in every human by training them from an early age to obey the laws, rules and morals of the controlling group, usually the rich, who dominate our governments and institutions. Therefore should we condemn those that feel society is not offering them a fair deal - which in fact they should take what they need in order to survive an often hostile environment where privilege depends on your school, family or wealth? Psychology itself needs to come out of the closet and admit that normal human behaviour is to oppose rigid societies and rules? That in fact people resent society but because they are powerless against those who control law-making and morality they feel certain helplessness in trying to live amongst the sheep. Is it any wonder then occasionally a lone individual takes it into their own hands to change society or their own environment in order to live a more free self-controlled existence away from the rigours of societies that as we have seen all eventually breakdown and reinvent themselves as the new rich and powerful take control once again. In the last century we saw China go from a Empire ruled by depots to a military regime controlled by the rich and powerful, to transform itself into a communist stare of the 1950's where Marxism would determine a fair life for all and eventually to the China of today as a capitalist socialist state based on a ruling party that determines the lives of the powerless populace, that in fact fought for the rulers to lord over them much as the Emperor of old - nothing changed except the rich and powerful.. Will another revolution occur in China in the future - at the moment it looks unlikely despite the unrest in many parts of China by minorities forced to comply with central rule. All empires cannot see their own demise! How will psychology then deal with this question of human behaviour as a basic survivalist mechanism, that in fact humans are naturally violent, cruel and dominating of others who are weaker than themselves? Psychiatry in mental hospitals is often seen as the agents of social control - if you do not agree with society and its rules then you must be insane - therefore you should be committed and controlled for the safety and benefit of all. Psychology on the other hand is seen as the liberating aspect of mental health - where we help those out of synch with society of find their place and fit back into what is considered normal behaviour for that group. Where will the answer be for those who rebel against the society they live in and want another way of existence with out the interference of the powerful and the freedom to live a life they choose as suiting themselves? Or do we wait - for the movies to come true - the disaster that awaits all humans and a return to a dog eat dog existence called survivalism - the real social norm!

END

End-note: I should as the author point out I am not advocating the American version of survivalists or any counter-revolutionaries in China or elsewhere nor do I condone actions against society that would lead to unhealthy outcomes. I do however recognise that societies change and fall often by what we term terrorists when they oppose our way of life and freedom fighters when they oppose a way of life that controls or restricts our personal freedoms. This as always is a philosophical question rather than a psychological one! I have not used the word evil in reference to human behaviour in this paper as the connotation infers a religious outlook which I certainly do not possess.

Parting Before Til Death Do Us Part - The Challenges of Sustaining Relationships in Today's World

Once upon a time, one could make a commitment "til death do us part," and actually consider it a meaningful promise. Sadly, today the very words that used to represent "lifetime relational security," now feel more like a fairy tale read in childhood, along the lines of "Sleeping Beauty," and "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs."

The society that "til death do us part" story was set in did not have a 62% divorce rate. In those long gone days of yore, 51% of adults at any time were not solo and uninvolved in a primary relationship. (This summer, Psychology Today magazine featured an article with that 51% statistic).

Hubert Humphrey once commented that he had been married to many women over the course of his life, all named Muriel--a sweet and genuine reflection on the ways we grow and change over time, including in long-term relationships. People often marry before they know who they really are themselves, and therefore, choose partners for reasons other than what would be sustainable ones long-term.

Too, people lack the skills and tools to engage in long-term relationship. I also believe it takes a village to hold a relationship, just as it takes a village to raise a child. But our village structures have broken down. Too many of us--children and adults, live like feral humans trying to survive on the emotional streets of life.

So, when I read personal growth and social consciousness publishing pioneer Nina Utne's personal essay on the dissolution of even her marriage in the March-April 2007 issue of Utne magazine, I felt like I needed to do some much deeper reflection on whether anyone can count on sustaining a relationship long-term in today's world.

Utne writes, "Eric and I both have considered our marriage a spiritual path, and its dissolution...is humbling us and demanding serious spiritual practices."

"And we, of all people, who have spent most of our lives exploring the nexus of personal growth and social change, who have weathered many of the storms that shipwreck marriages, we should be able to navigate this transition gracefully. But that's without factoring in 'shenpa,' a Tibetan word for the things that trigger us and make us flare up and close down."

Sadly, we are not given a relational roadmap, that lets us know that after we pass through the neurochemically rich stages of "new relationship energy," we will enter the shadowlands, where our deeper selves indeed will be triggered. The triggers are an invitation to learn, to grow, to heal--emotionally, spiritually and relationally. But lacking both the roadmap and the tools to navigate the territory, too many relationships break and fail.

Nina Utne cites a conversation someone had with Margaret Mead about how she felt about having failed marriages. "She replied that she didn't have failed marriages; she had remarkable partnerships that were appropriate for different stages of her life."

While, for many of us, that may be true, and it is a very compassionate and perhaps useful way to hold breakdowns of partnerships and divorce, part of my heart still feels sad to behold that grain of contemporary truth.

There is a profound value to having another walk beside us throughout our life's journey. I experienced this with a mentor of mine, who supported my life's unfolding for 17 years. He was a spiritual father to me, and I can say with full honesty, that our relationship did indeed last til his sudden and unexpected death did we part. While I grieved his death, it was easier to accept because of the richness of our 17 year relationship. I felt I had so much to be thankful for, my tears of sadness were tempered with tears of love.

I am myself a divorced single mom. And I have been so for more years of my life and my son's life than I could have ever imagined. On the one hand, my ex-husband and I are still "working the pieces" in a way few couples do before never mind after divorce. For just about 9 years, we've been working regularly with a family therapist, to help create a safer environment for parenting our now 11 year old son.

People marvel as this commitment we have made. And yet, to me it was more important to me than any other agreement on our divorce contract. Our agreement is to engage in this family therapy until our son is in his early 20's. I know this is a promise we will keep.

I believe with all my heart that if two people have children together, they have a responsibility to work their relationship with one another for life for the good of their kids. If a couple divorces, they usually have more work to do than a married couple. The issues that caused the divorce don't magically go away in the courthouse. In fact, they often need more attention so they don't become things that bump very loudly in the night and in the day.

It seems sadly easy for people to walk away from one another, or even run away, without having looked at the skeletons in the closet, including one's own personal closet that accompanied us into our committed partnerships. Being given a roadmap, a third party who commits to help the partners succeed, and role models of people who take the time and do the emotional work to sustain and deepen long-term relationships should be a right of passage into adulthood.

I have come to realize that for me, having a close relationship for a period of time, and then not having it, is more painful than a long-term relationship ending with the death of a partner.

I had to confront this very issue head on a number of years ago, when a man I had started seeing as a potential long-term partner was diagnosed with cancer 6 weeks into our relationship. I remember my therapist asking me, "Do you want to continue getting involved with this man who may die?" I found myself saying, "I am not afraid of the fact that he might die. We all die eventually. In fact, I would really like the chance to do til death do us part. I am more afraid that it won't be death that I lose him to. I am more afraid I won't get to do til death do us part."

Sadly, after just about 2 years as partners, integrating our families and our lives, he decided he did not want a long-term partner after all. I did indeed walk beside him through cancer surgeries and treatment. And while the cancer became a long-term chronic condition, our relationship was not something he carried with him long-term.

I find it both sad and paradoxical that I am given the opportunity to use my deeply refined relationship skills to help other couples navigate the shadowlands, and with great success. I have been praying to God to give me a partner ready, willing and able to do this work with me. I have no desire to be the cobbler whose children have no shoes. And I surely apply my relationship skills in parenting my son, sustaining my deep long-term friendships, and just about every other facet of my life.

I really pray I do get a chance to to "til death do us part" and give my son the model of a healthy, sustained, mutual, loving partnership between me and a man I love. This is just much more complex going than I could have ever imagined growing up...and even at this middle-aged time in my life.

Why Some of Us Help While Others Hurt? Explore Social Psychology Today

Social psychology is study of how people think, influence, and relate to one another. Social psychology explores topics such as traits, attitudes, goals, as well as social norms and social behavior. Additional topics include prejudice, romantic attraction, persuasion, friendship, cultural and human diversity, helping, aggression, group relations, attitude formation, stereotyping, minority issues, conformity, and group interaction.

A successful social psychologist will have skills in analyzing and interpreting social research data as well as the application of those findings. Most programs in this area of psychology will give you a solid base in the study of psychology with a set of electives geared toward social psychology topics such as social institutions, social problems, ethical issues in social sciences, writing for social sciences, principals of social research and statistics for social sciences.

Careers with an Online Social Psychology Degree

There are many opportunities for employment open to social psychologists. With this degree you could teach or do research at a university or college. Most social psychologists are located in psychology departments but they are also present in departments such as business, education, marketing, communication, sociology, law and medicine.

Aside from academics, social psychologists work in the private sector, either as a consultant, marketing director, political strategist, technology designer or researcher. They server as trail consultants advising in jury selection, assist the trail team and test out mock juries. Additionally, social psychologists work in government organizations, working on education policy, environmental protection and conflict resolution.

As a social science analyst, social psychologists help on recommending policies designed to promote the security of the American people. As drug enforcement consultants, they help review research and make recommendations regarding drug control. Additional government positions include the center for diseases control and prevention, census bureau as well as the CIA/FBI.

Salary and Job Outlook

This degree program will prepare you for a wide array of career opportunities. As a result, it is hard to estimate the average income level of a social psychologist, as this will depend on the specific specialization, location and type of employment. Like in any other profession, those with a doctorate degree will earn the highest salary, far more than those with a master's degree.

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), social psychologists with a doctoral degree earned a median income of $92, 500. Additionally, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics states that the job outlook for psychologists is excellent and expected to grow faster than average for all other occupations well into 2014.

Are Online Degree Programs a Good Idea?

Online social psychology degree programs have a number of benefits. They allow for great flexibility, and ensure that you can continue your education while working full time. Your life does not have to adjust around your coursework, your courses adjust around your life.

Online learning environments provide an academically stimulating, learner centered cooperative learning environment. In this type of learning model discussion, not lecture, is the primary method of knowledge distribution.

If you like lectures and a passive learning style, online learning is not for you. You have to have motivation and dedication in order to succeed in an online program. Consider your learning style carefully before deciding to enroll in a full time online degree program. If you are not sure if an online environment is right for you, test it out first. Try taking one or two online courses and compare them to your traditional learning experience. Online learning is not for everyone, for it to be successful for you, it must be comfortable and what you want to do.

Nature Versus Nurture? Psychology Fields It All

There are many reasons to choose to be a psychology major. Many students who choose a course of study in psychology are often students who are fascinated with how the mind works and why people do the interesting things they do. One requirement to being a psychology major is to take a course that is known as Introduction to Psychology. This course is designed to educate students on the many different ways in which psychology has evolved throughout the years, in addition to teaching students about the many different people who have helped psychology evolve to the state it is in today.

There are quite a few contributors to the field who are responsible for the many different theories and ideas that permeate psychology today. These people will be covered in the introductory course, however, they will not be covered to the depth they require because the problem that comes with an introductory course is that there is so much to cover in a short period of time. Two important people that will be profiled in Intro to Psychology are Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung.

Sigmund Freud is considered to be the "Father of Modern Psychology" due to the voluminous contributions he has made to the study of psychology. Some of Freud's most famous contributions to the field are his pioneering work in dream analysis, the Id, Ego and Superego, and the contribution of the Oedipal Complex to psychological development. Freud is still as controversial today as he was during his lifetime.

Carl Jung is someone who took Freud's work on dream analysis to another level. Introduction to Psychology students will learn about the great deal of variety within Jung's life, as well as his contributions to the field of psychoanalysis. Jung is responsible for the theory of individuation, and that remains a concept that is important for students in the Intro to Psych course to learn.

There are thousands of different theories that govern the study of psychology. Students who are enrolled in this intro course will learn about the many different theories that are out there because of the survey nature of this class. There are many different theories that students will learn and some of the more important points of study students will encounter are the debate on nature versus nature, as well as the nature of abnormal psychology.

Nature versus nurture is the idea that the development of the individual is dependent on either the environment in which a child is raised or the genetic coding within one's DNA. Many people who support the idea of nature believe that in order for someone to develop certain behaviors and intellect it must be genetic. Others believe that one's environment is the deciding factor.

There are many different disorders that make up the study of abnormal psychology. Many students who are interested in abnormal psychology will learn about schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder and dissociative disorder within this introductory program.