PDA

View Full Version : The psychology of Evil



Unified Serenity
30th December 2011, 01:20
Years ago I read "People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck. It's an amazing book and I had many case studies to use to verify the identified patients whom I worked with who were in fact victims of evil family structures and most often one or both parents were evil. The identified patient is not the one typically who needs the psychological lamplight put on them. They are mentally healthy enough to know something is terribly wrong and they want to stop their pain. The one who really needs to be in the chair getting help will not do so because the light of truth is something they desperately never want to have shining on them.

The following are excerpts written about People of the Lie. I think we live in a world run by very evil people who employ tactics to divide. We mirror these tactics often when we ourselves feel threatened or face some truth which we do not want to face. Does that make us evil? I don't think so. Just as children mimic their parents, we learn behaviors. We can all be guilty of falling into habits and tactics engrained in us by the "system". I present this for understanding and hopefully discussion. We have many group dynamics here on Avalon. It is my hope to not fall into these pits and if we find that we have to simply acknowledge it, apologize and dust ourselves off and move on.

"The Subtlety of Evil
One respect in which it is difficult to explain about evil is its subtlety. Evil sometimes will manifest itself obviously. In Dr. Peck's book, The People of the Lie, he described parents with two sons, whose oldest boy committed suicide. They subsequently gave the very rifle that boy used to end his life as a birthday gift to his younger brother. There, evil showed itself as quite apparent, but it rarely does so. More commonly, evil's manifestations are seemingly ordinary, superficially normal, and even apparently rational. Those who are evil are masters of disguise; they are not apt to wittingly disclose their true colors, either to others or to themselves. It is not without reason that the serpent is renowned for his subtlety. It is exceedingly rare, therefore, that we can pass judgment on a person as being evil after observing a single act; instead, our judgment must be made on the basis of a whole pattern of acts as well as their manner and style. There is something basically incomprehensible about evil. But if not incomprehensible, it is characteristically inscrutable . The evil always hide their motives with lies. Wherever there is evil, there's a lie around. Evil always has something to do with lies. Naturally, since it is designed to hide its opposite, the pretense chosen by the evil is most commonly the pretense of love. The pretense of the evil is designed at least as much to deceive themselves as others. A child can emotionally survive only by virtue of a massive fortification of its psyche. While such fortifications or psychological defenses are essential to its survival through childhood, they inevitably distort or compromise its life as an adult.

Evil as a personality disorder
Illness and disease could be defined as any defect in the structure of our bodies or our personalities that prevents us from fulfilling our potential as human beings. A good definition of such potential can be found in Abraham Maslow's description of "self-actualized" persons in his book, Motivation and Personality. He believes that the phenomenon of evil can and should be subjected to scientific scrutiny. Of course, if evil an illness, it is not only a disease; it is the ultimate disease. The existing broad psychiatric category of "personality disorders" currently covers those psychiatric conditions in which the denial of personal responsibility is the prominent feature. By virtue of their unwillingness to tolerate the sense of personal sin and the denial of their imperfection, the evil easily fit into this broad diagnostic category. There is even within this class a subcategory entitled "narcissistic personality disorder." It might be quite appropriate to classify evil people as constituting a specific variant of the narcissistic personality disorder. Many of the evil people seen by psychiatrists are diagnosed as having "ambulatory schizophrenia." And those who are personally exposed to those who have been designated as "ambulatory schizophrenics" most often define them as evil people. Peck believed that the time is right for psychiatry to recognize a distinct new type of personality disorder to encompass those which he defined as evil.

A proposed new scientific definition of evil
In addition to the abrogation of responsibilities characterizing all personality disorders, this one would specifically be distinguished by: (a) consistent destructive, scapegoating behavior, which may often be quite subtle. (b) excessive, albeit usually covert, intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury. c) pronounced concern with a public image and self-image of respectability, contributing to a stability of life-style but also to pretentiousness and denial of hateful feelings or vengeful motives. d) intellectual deviousness, with an increased likelihood of a mild schizophrenic-like disturbance of thinking at times of stress. But to get such a classification is probably not realistic. In that regard, it is noteworthy how difficult it is to examine evil people in depth, because it is their nature to avoid the light. Denying their imperfection, the evil flee both self-examination and any situation in which they might be closely examined by others.

The phenomenon of group evil
The phenomenon of group evil is somewhat distinct from, although in many respects similar to, the phenomenon of individual evil. Human groups tend to behave in much the same ways as human individuals-except at a level that is more primitive and immature that one might expect. Why this is so, why the behavior of groups is strikingly immature, why they are, from a psychological standpoint, less than the sum of their parts, is a question unable to be answered. One thing, however, is certain; there is more than one right answer. The phenomenon of group immaturity is, to use a psychiatric term, "overdetermined." This is to say that it is the result of multiple causes. One of those causes is the problem of specialization. Specialization contributes to the immaturity of groups and their potential for evil through several different mechanisms. One such mechanism: the fragmentation of conscience. Whenever the roles of individuals within a group become specialized, it become both possible and easy for the individual to pass the moral buck to some other part of the group.

Any group will remain inevitably, potentially conscienceless and evil until such time as each and every individual holds himself or herself directly responsible for the behavior of the whole group... of which he or she is a part. As with any lie, the primary motive of a cover-up is fear. In a situation of prolonged discomfort we humans naturally, almost inevitably, tend to regress. Our psychological growth reverses itself; our maturity is forsaken. Can we not say that human beings are more likely to be evil in times of stress than in times of comfort?

Patterns of group behavior are remarkably similar to the behavior of an individual. This is because a group is an organism. It tends to function as a single entity. A group of individuals behave as a unit because of what is called group cohesiveness. There are profound forces at work within a group to keep its individual members together and in line. When these forces to cohesiveness fail, the group begins to disintegrate and ceases to be in a group. Probably the most powerful of these group cohesive forces is again narcissism (but, now group narcissism). In its simplest and most benign form, this is manifested in group pride. As the members feel proud of their group so the group feels proud of itself. A less benign, but practically universal form of group narcissism is what might be called "enemy creation," or hatred of the "out-group." We can see this naturally occurring in children as they first learn to develop groups. The groups become cliques. Those who do not belong to the group (club or clique) are despised as being inferior or evil or both. If a group does not already have an enemy, it will most likely create one in short order. It is almost common knowledge that the best way to cement group cohesiveness is to ferment the group's hatred of an external enemy. Deficiencies within the group can be easily and painlessly overlooked by focusing attention on the deficiencies or "sins" of the out-group.

Turning from consideration of the specialized individual to the specialized group, we will see the same sorts of dangerous forces at work. The specialized group inevitably develops a group character that is self-reinforcing. Second, specialized groups are therefore particularly prone to narcissism, that is, to experiencing themselves as uniquely right and superior in relation to other homogeneous groups.

Otherwise we will insulate ourselves from our own deeds, and as a whole people we will become like the individuals described in previous sections: evil. For evil arises in the refusal to acknowledge our own sins. Again and again, we have noted the birth of evil from a condition of threatened narcissism. As the highly narcissistic (evil) individual will strike out to destroy whoever challenges his or her self-image of perfection... Attitudes have a kind of inertia. Once set in motion, they will keep going, even in the face of the evidence. To change an attitude requires a considerable amount of work and suffering. The process must begin either in an purposefully maintained posture of constant self-doubt and criticism or else in a painful acknowledgment that what we thought was right all along may not be right after all. aIt is only from the quicksand of confusion that we are able to leap to the new and better vision. "
(Taken from http://samredman.com/peopleofthelie/

Mark
30th December 2011, 01:42
Reminds me of Lord of the Flies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_flies) reading this stuff. It was certainly individual and group narcissism and dynamics that led to the final resolution of that novel's plot.

My mother and sister recommended that book, "People of the Lie" to me. I read most of it. It dovetails into my studies regarding psychopathy. For while, after reading it, I used the term "Malignant Narcissism" instead of Evil, believing that it was a less inflammatory and more "scientific" way to describe what is, in essence, indescribable.

In regards to group psychology as explained here in the context of evil, what I will say is that people can agree to disagree as a group about certain actions, ideas or people when those actions, ideas or people continue to grate on the group's nerves in a certain repetitive vein. If a community has a certain tolerance for difference, those who assail that tolerance find themselves ousted socially and with little recourse except to accept their isolation until it ends or they leave.

Here we enter into group mores, ideals, what they hold in common, the very stuff that holds them together as a group/system. Almost always unspoken or brought to the fore as overt rules, but understood by all who have been brought into the group. How do you speak on what is unspoken if the response to your speech is silence? The echo can be horrendous.

How about that movie, The Beach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beach_(film))? When those Swedish brothers got bit by the shark, one died but another had the nerve to stay alive and unnerve everyone else by complaining, crying out, his pain hitting the last nerve cell of every single person there who just wanted to enjoy their beach. They moved him out to a tent far away so they could continue their illusory lifestyle and continued to blind themselves until forced to bear witness to the consequences of their choices, which they had been blind to previously. Were they evil? The old poem/paean about nobody being left to speak up for me, because I didn't speak up when they were taken?

I speak over and over again about these dynamics in many of my posts, which lie fallow here more often than not. Nobody wants to hear that continuing to be a part of the group/system makes you responsible for that group/system. Again, repetition and grating on the nerves of "the group". Silence and ostricization are the general response. If not, conflict and emotionalism leading to silence and ostricization. It is always this way.

Human nature? Or can we rise above?

161803398
30th December 2011, 01:52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wop91_Gvwos