Second Blog: William James in Modern Times

Social Psychology Essay Two:

‘The Moral Equivalent of War’ in Modern times

By Nicholas Studdert

Is William James' classic essay from the early 1900's still relevant today? Reconsider James' arguments in light of social psychological theory and research which has ensued.

In 1906, in his classic essay ‘the moral equivalent of war’, William James proposed that war is both a necessary, if not historic and outdated, step in human social evolution and an avoidable tragedy. James criticises the suggestion, popular at the time among military writers, that war is a necessity for national unity because it provided a strong martial imperative for innovation and bred patriotism. Ideally, wrote the military party (as James describes it) there must always be a threat, real or supposed, for a nation to remain viable and vibrant, without which society degenerates. A passive collective is not sustainable because it fosters self-serving citizens, void of pride or passion for the collective itself and while it may serve to allow pleasurable pursuits to rule for a time, is ultimately finite. James acknowledges that war has been throughout history both the easiest and most successful form of human pursuit for purpose. That is, where the purpose is expansion or the advancement of one’s own group, conquest is the simplest avenue. In the evolution of human society, says James, the warlike groups have been selected but virtue of their success. Innovation and invention too are identified as moving at the most vigorous pace under the auspices of military need. Because of these advantages pacifism may make no head way with the military parties who view such disadvantages as death and suffering as worth the result. James does however differ in his prediction of the warlike pursuit’s role in future human society and the view of war as ‘a permanent human obligation’. The martial mind, he says, must be preserved for its rewards are the most cohesive forms of human cooperation, but as for the purpose to which it has historically been applied (war), it has become unnecessary and deplorable. In this way while war has been the driving force behind the development of the martial mind, it remains only a transitory step. James proposes the creation of a civil militant class, meaning the martial mind turned to civil purposes. Suggesting even a form of civil conscription he posits that the youth of America be forced to develop civil institutions in the same way young soldiers are forced to sustain and develop the ethos of the army for which they serve. This would, James argues, foster the same pride and unity in the collective as is seen in wartime. Through this avenue humanity may once and for all do away with the tastelessness of war and move to a productive yet pacifist culture.

James’ comment that “history is a blood bath” can be placed in stark perspective given that the century that followed was the punctuated by violence or as William Golding described it “…the most violent century in human history” (Hobsbawn, 1994). The 20^th century saw the first ever World Wars, various acts of genocide and pogroms. Out of these conflicts rose former and current superpowers and demonstrations of national unity and patriotism that have proved to be both absolute and dangerous. It cannot be denied that the German national identity was particularly strong during the early rein of Hitler and particularly weak and fractured afterwards. Nations without a strong national cohesion have, for the most part, over the last century collapsed into internal military conflict, as can be seen in the cases of inter alia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and after invasion, Iraq. In the face of these developments it becomes incumbent on social psychologists to review James’ suggestion of an alternate path to national unity. Clearly it is prudent to compare developments in the field of social psychology over the most recent ‘blood bath’ of a century with the work of this early psychologist and philosopher. This essay will identify those social psychology theories that overlap with James’ work and attempt to map out why his statements about war hold continual relevance today and into the next century.

Firstly, James’ implies one of the fundamental findings of social psychology through his description of the unity and innovation that the martial process and mind brings. The phenomenon of in-group favouritism (as described by Tajfel in the 1970’s), the tendency to hold favourable attitudes of those within one’s own group and to hold unfavourable attitudes towards those outside the group, and the extremity of this effect, as with the minimal group effect, can account for the pride and unity found in well defined groups such as the military (Altemeyer, 2003; Greenwald, et al, 2002). Similarly, Sherif’s work on groups in competition from the 1950’s and 60’s demonstrated that competition for scares resources causes conflict and hostility between groups. Importantly however, Sherif’s realistic conflict theory states that such prejudice will diminish if the groups are placed in cooperation to obtain shared resources. The function of the strict group boundaries offered by the military as a driver of national unity can also be accounted for by the scapegoat theory demonstrated in the 1940’s by Hovland and Sears. A group will tend to blame bad outcomes on out-groups members and good outcomes (as is the case with individuals and the self-serving bias) on in-group members. James’ observation that the military mode of operation encourages unity has been confirmed by subsequent investigations into group attitude formation. The military, as James implies, offers clear goals, within well-defined boundaries and for obvious rewards therefore it plays strongly to the above mentioned group tendencies.

James, in his advocacy for the achievements in purpose of the military, places a strong emphasis on the ability of the martial process to get things done and to create a cohesive coordinated drive towards a goal. He suggests that this tendency serve civil purposes as well as it does military ones. Unfortunately, there may be evidence that strong group unity does not always produce the most favourable outcome. The term groupthink was coined by George Orwell in his classic novel 1984 and adopted by social psychologist Irving Janis in the 1970’s. The term refers to the tendency of members of a group to think the same way. Several factors contribute to this tendency and include, the group having high self-esteem, a strong and decisive leader, an initial similarity between members and group isolation (Hogg & Hains, 1998). Applying these criteria to military service it becomes clear that the martial group through its leadership structure and practical process not only facilitates groupthink but also encourages it. War having only ‘victory’ as its ultimate goal is well suited to the groupthink phenomenon. It can be seen that this coordination of thought serves a single purpose well. In James’ civil conscription however, the group is directed to many differing and fractured goals as a result of the complexity of social societies continued existence and development. Such goals may even, at times, come into conflict with each other. This fundamental difference in the operation of effort towards a shared goal in group-decision-making can be seen in the work of Stasser and Titus in the 1980’s. It was identified that the individual members of a group operate more to be accepted by the group than to achieve the group’s objectives and thus engage in groupthink (Kameda & Sugimori, 1993). In this way the decisions can be faulty (Hart, et al, 1993).

Not withstanding the criticisms that can be found in the social psychological literature James’ prediction remains valid. His assertion that the martial model of organised human endeavour may be effectively applied to civil pursuits can be seen in the modern practise of ‘peace keeping’. Where the authority represented by a military presence is needed to instigate and maintain cohesive and developing nations, including through building infrastructure. This shift from ‘keeping the peace’ to ‘nation building’ directly reflects James’ core thesis. The majority of research in social psychology has supported his observations that identify those factors which draw out the best-focused and generalised efforts of groups. William James’ insights into the workings of groups through his identification of the martial organizational model and its advantages has been reflected in almost every conflict throughout the 20^th century. His description of the paradoxical relationship that humans have with war and both its disadvantages and profits stands clear and relevant in the context of western civilisations leaning towards individually focused pleasure economies and specific operations such as America’s attempt to rebuild Iraq. For these reasons the classic essay ‘the moral equivalent of war’ remains a clear and relevant statement on the nature of the social animal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References:

Altemeyer, B., (2003). Why Do Religious Fundamentalists Tend to be Prejudiced? The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13, No. 1, 17–28

Greenwald, A., Pickrell, J., and Farnham, S., (2002). Implicit Partisanship: Taking Sides for no Reason. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, No. 2, 367–379

Hart, P., Swets, L., and Zeitlinger, A., (1993). Groupthink in Government: A Study of Small Groups and Policy Failure. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 1, No. 1, 62-63

Hogg, M., & Hains, S., (1998). Friendship and group identification: a new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink. European Journal of Social Psychology 28, 323–341

Hobsbawn, E., (1994). Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991. Penguin Books Australia Ltd., Victoria.

Kameda, T., & Sugimori, S., (1993). Psychological Entrapment in Group Decision Making: An Assigned Decision Rule and a Groupthink Phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, No.2, 282-292

Concept MAP.

This is my concept map to go with my first essay posted below. It outlines the major factors that lead to genocide. When all these factors are in play, genocide may be the result. Please click on it to see a larger image.

Essay one: Genocide

Factors Leading to the Act of Genocide

Genocide is the systematic extermination of one ethnic group by another. It was originally described by Raphael Lemkin in 1944 as having two phases:

“...one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor.” Lemkin (1944)

This definition has at its core a potent description of the objective and method of any genocide. That is, the removal of a certain population to make way for another. While this often takes the form of mass violence and murder of the target group, this is not necessary to Lemkin’s definition. The national pattern of a group may be destroyed through other means, such as cultural oppression and forced assimilation for example through the removal of children at a young age (Abed, 2006). Similarly the United Nations has attempted to define the act of genocide as:

“...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

(Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, 1948)

Therefore genocide is defined not by the form it takes but rather by the intention behind the act. The powerful effects of this intention prompts the need for investigation into how such intention is formed, what factors influence its development and how may it be prevented in the future.

Importantly the discussion of cause in the context of genocide is not limited to any one factor. Theorists such as Ervin Staub have repeatedly demonstrated that the culmination of several negative group traits, historical cultural influences as well as situational variables all contribute to an act of genocide (Staub, 1971, 1989, 1996). Woofle and Hulsizer (2005) following the Rwandan genocide described seven developmental stages of genocide, compiling in their description the compounded effects of all Staub’s factors. This essay will describe those factors and the psychological basis for theories that identify them as being the cause of genocidal behaviour.

Cultural Historical Factors:
It is important to note that no society or ethnic group exists without historical influences. Generally, there may be identified general historical traits of a group or culture that facilitate genocide. A strong culture of violence, stark ethnic boundaries or intercultural paradoxes can lay the foundations for further violent developments. Similarly, the dehumanisation of individuals of the opposing group and the existence of a real or perceived threat posed by that group are found consistently prior to genocide (Woofle & Hulsizer, 2005). In the Rwanda genocide for example, the two opposing groups, Tutsis and Hutu, had a history of distrust and conflict. The Hutu majority had ruled over the Tutsis minority for several years, however historically it was the Tutsis that had been the ruling class and colonised the Rwandan area (Clark, et al, 1975).

A history of dehumanisation or devaluation of the opposing group is a significant influence on the risk of genocide. The converse is also true. Often the group that may potentially commit genocide views itself as superior or ‘truly’ human. This allows the opposing group to be viewed as distinct or different. For example the ethos of the Nazi movement in Germany prior to World War II was to systematically portray the German people as a distinct “human” race, while the Jewish population was likened to rats (Woofle & Hulsizer, 2005). When a particular group is dehumanized and the other made to feel superior conflict arises when the ‘sub-human’ group is successful, as was the case with economically successful Jews in Germany prior to the Holocaust (Staub, 1996).

The Rwandan Tutsis rebels having cordoned off a section of Rwanda and established themselves as a productive if not militaristic group were therefore contradicting the historical perception of Tutsis as inferior. The reaction from the Hutu government was the same hatred and violent reaction to this demonstration of power that contradicted the view of superiority described by Staub. The interaction of historical conflict, socially perceived superiority and dehumanisation may interact to create an environment where genocide is possible.

Situational Factors:
Regardless of the adverse historical factors, often a current issue or event is needed to produce genocide. Woofle and Hulsizer (2005) identified two situational events that influence the progression of violence against a specific group, a destabilising crisis and an authoritarian leadership.

Often a national crisis will prompt individuals to seek out and stay close to their own identified ethnic group. They may have increased levels of stress and fear or look for a scapegoat for the crisis (Woofle & Hulsizer, 2005). In the Rwandan context the country was, at the time, under significant economic stress but the obvious and damaging crisis came when the presidential plane was shot down. This political crisis allowed the extremist members of the Hutu Government to take control and facilitated the beginnings of genocide.

An authoritarian leader seems to be an essential part of organised genocide (Woofle & Hulsizer, 2005). Similarly a population used to deferring to authority or that is habitually obedient may be a significant factor in allowing group violence to occur. The German people for example, have been found to have had particularly high levels of respect before the rise of the Nazi party prior to World War II (Staub, 1996). An authoritarian leader given the right circumstances can manipulate and prime the population for genocide as was seen in Rwanda were radio stations were used to broadcast degrading messages about the Tutsis.

Social Psychological Factors:
The attitudes that a group holds about others can have profound effects on their susceptibility to being manipulated, their propensity to aid other groups in times of crisis and the likelihood of accepting violent acts committed by members of the group. These attitudes are closely related to how the group perceives itself (Woofle & Hulsizer, 2005). A group tends to identify itself in the same way that an individual does. One particular effect of this is the separation of the group from other groups and a tendency towards individual attitudes that bias the group the individual belongs to (Tajfel, 1982). Therefore if the group views itself as superior and the other inferior, or itself as weakened and the other to blame for that weakness, there is an enhanced chance that the violent tendencies toward members of the opposing group will surface (Staub, 1996).

Social influences on behaviour can be powerful given the right environmental situation. One outcome of identifying strongly with a particular group is that when a crisis occurs individuals tend to seek out the group for support. The prospect of being expelled from the group can cause individuals to act in novel ways (Woofle & Hulsizer, 2005). In the case of genocide this can be particularly damaging. In Rwanda it is unlikely that all Hutu felt equally as passionate about hunting down Tutsis but large groups were formed who found themselves following the groups objective.

Genocide is the systematic eradication of one group by another. Often expressed through mass violence and killings it is a horrific and deeply disturbing social activity. The nature of it causes many to question how such a thing could occur and seek out the causes. If the factors contributing to situations such as that in World War II, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and possibly Darfur in the Sudan are understood than these atrocities may be better predicted and possibly averted. The historical cultural backgrounds of different ethnic or cultural groups contribute to creating animosity between groups when left to simmer. A situational prompt may be enough to begin the process of hatred and violence between groups. Natural cognitive mechanisms serve to allow for strongly held beliefs that can translate into violent action and ultimately genocide. For this reason that genocide has been described as the “perfect storm” of social psychological variables, when all the factors are aligned genocide s the unfortunate and terrible consequence.

References:

Abed, M., (2006). Clarifying the Concept of Genocide. The Author Journal compilation, 37, No. 3-4, 308 – 330

Clark, D., Oliver, R., Roberts, A., and Fage, J., (1975) The Cambridge History of Africa. Cambridge University Press.

Lemkin, R., (1944). Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Washington, D.C. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law.

Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, (1948). Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Accessed at: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm, 25/8/07

Staub, E., (1996). Cultural-Societal Roots of Violence The Examples of Genocidal Violence and of Contemporary Youth Violence in the United States. American Psychologist, 51, No.2, 117-132

H Tajfel, H., (1982). Social Psychology of Intergroup Relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39

Radio National's Life Matters show and the digital household

Hello social-psychies,

I was listening to the program "life matters" on Radio National this morning and they were having an interesting conversation about the problems parents were having with children and teenagers who spent too much time online. Quite an appropriate topic I thought considering our currently assessment-shackled online existence. During the discussion I found myself as an onliner getting rather angry at the lack of understanding and narrow perspectives expressed by guests and talk-back callers alike. So in a fit of passion I sat down afterwards and wrote them and email. It went like this:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing this email as a young adult who has grown up using the Internet, especial for instant messaging and all manner online interaction.

It became clear to me as I listened to your program on the “Digital Household” that there is a significant conceptual gap between those generations who have not been deeply involved with the Internet at a young age and those who have.

I think it can best be illustrated with the terminology used by your guests and by those who called in (who were as far as I could tell all parents). I heard the words “on the computer” more times than I could count as well as phrases like “I tell them they have to get off the computer” or “I take the computer away”. Here can be seen the gap I am concerned about. It is obvious through these comments that older generations see the “computer” and not the “online environment”. Or as I think it should be described, the “online society”.

I felt that there was only one caller who understood the difference between these perspectives. He commented on how when he was young parents told their children to go out and play in the world. He then went on to point out that the “world” is now in the child or teenager’s room. This is exactly right and it explains, I believe, why parents have such a hard time coming to grips with not just the fact that their children spend so much time online, but “how” they can and why teenagers react so aggressively when parents attempt to disconnect them.

The perspective from a person well versed in online interaction is very different. The Online world is a “world” and a “society” in the same way that Australian concrete society exists. It operates very much the same way. It has its own mores and taboos, rules of conversation and conduct. But here is the catch, these rules are different from the rules of “real” society. And here is the conflict between those who know them and those who don’t. One of your callers stated that she would “go into the office and tell her teen that they had to get off the computer NOW.” This to someone who sees the teen as simply “sitting on the computer”, which is an anti real-world exercise, is fine. But to the online participant it is decidedly rude. It is clear when a simple real world example is used, if two people were having a conversation face to face and a third party burst into the middle and addressing one party but not the other said “you have to stop talking NOW”, there would be serious conflict created. In fact a parent wouldn’t dream of doing that to one of their teen’s friends face to face. This is exactly what is happening to the teen online when the parent bursts into the room making demands.

To be completely obvious the teen might be in the middle of a discussion on philosophy, or what they are going to do on the weekend, or some completely online experience, but the parent does not know this, they are making the assumption because its “on the computer” it can’t be “important” They don’t know the rules of this online society and so just like a deviant in “real” society they are continually breaking them and invoking the sanctions of that society just like they would in real world. The issue is that they don’t have to continue to interact there, but their children do.

As I said before the societies are not the same. It is all right to remove one speaker from a conversation and not affect the other in the online world if the social rules are followed. For example a simple “GTG” or “got to go” will make it obvious that the person is “AFK” or “away from keyboard”. The other participant can write an email or leave an offline message, meaning that conversations can span days or even weeks. These differences are vast and as was picked up by some of the guests on the show even including the creation of entirely new forms of language.

I heard repeatedly in the voices of your guests to some extent, but mostly in your callers a note of, “I know what they are doing, and I know what is important” (not to mention that this generally equated to paper books, which are readily available in electronic form online!). To me this comes off as nothing but arrogant. Here is an example, many of the non-Internet generation may think of themselves as understanding the online world because they use email at work or have spent half an hour on instant messaging. The example of a friend of mine’s mother will surface. In an attempt to explain to his mother why he enjoyed the online world he sat her down and made her message people for half an hour. At the end she said, “This is boring, I don’t really like it.” To her it was perfectly simple, the experience was cumbersome and frustrating. To her son it was exceedingly funny to watch his mother misinterpret the conversation, end up several points behind for lack of typing speed, and generally stick out like a sore thumb as a person with no social ability in this environment. No one would spend half an hour in another culture or in another country and pretend to understand the culturally-bond mind and metal constructions of those around them. More to the point if they did they would be accused of cultural arrogance and insensitivity.

Children in the age of the Internet are socialised in two ways. They are socialised in the “real” world and they are socialised in the online world. They can move between both, they know both are different and have different standards of behaviour and interaction and can transverse those standards without difficulty. The parent’s generation is not. They have no concept of what this other society is or how it works. It is different. It does appear strange to them, and so they shun away from it and try to take their children too.

This is not to say that the older generation cannot become socialised in the online world. They most certainly can. My same friend’s father, who is 51 years old has spent the last five or so years gradually expanding in this online world. He is now, after five years, reasonably versed in the culture. However, it must be stressed, he is not a local yet, he is not a native. He is, to use a “real” world example, an ex-patriot living in and creating a new life in a new country. Anyone can understand the online culture but they have to put the effort in and not simply make decision based on out of date concepts of computers. If they do not have the desire or time to properly do so, then they should understand at least that it exists as another culture and extend the same curiosity, respect and sensitivity when interacting with those in it as we would to any other society.

Finally, I would like to state firmly my position as a member of the online social world. I am studying a law/psychology double degree. I speak English and Spanish, and have a large group of friend who I entertain for dinner, go to restaurants and movies with and generally do all the things a young adult normally does with their friends in the “real” world. However, I also have an active online social experience and my computer is the first thing to be turned on in the morning and the last to be turned off at night if it is at all. This side of my person, of my identity, was frankly rebelled and infuriated by the lack of understanding that was expressed in your program by callers and guests alike. Comments such as “They feel like they will be left out off something and be embarrassed at school the next day” are honestly incredibility naive, because they are defining one society as being nothing more than an activity in another.

There is a serious conceptual gap here that needs to be addressed not by outsiders, but explained by those who actually live in the online society. Where were their representatives on your show? Where were the people who grew up there? Who have lived there most if not all of their lives and developed there? The citizens of the online society understand the importance of both worlds, they understand the social rules of both, and want to adhere to both sets of rules. Its is those who only live in one that don’t that are having problems, admittedly parents will say “My child only lives online”, but this is false, the child goes to school, plays and interacts with friends there, for the large majority of every day. It’s the parents who in this case really “don’t understand” because they don’t “live” in the same place as their children and never have.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I will take the time to say thank you for making it all the way through my essay like defense of the online social world. However all this did get me thinking... I think there is a considerable P.H.D in this field. If someone hasn't already done it. The discussion to my mind centers around the interaction between cognition (schemas etc), social interaction and developmental psychology. And I find it fascinating. So here are the questions:

1: What do you psychies think about online culture? is it something equatable with the real word?
2: Does the interaction between the two worlds detract from both? does it enrich them?
3: Is it really a case of another culture with mores and taboos, that can be taught? (my example in the email of a fifty year old man getting there but finding it hard to do the things a seven or eight year old can do if brought up in that world)

An interesting topic don't you think? I hope you guys check out the podcast on the life matters site and get into this one :)

-*-WP-*-

Human vulnerability to Social Pressure (response to Bec)

Firstly: I would like to say quickly that I realise its only the end of the first week of uni and I might have jumped the gun a bit here as many people may not see this because they won’t check till later in the semester. If so I may bring these posts back later on to reopen discussion, but if we can get the discussion going now well all the better! :)

Secondly: I have started this as a new post because I think the topic is broad enough to warrant it. I also commented on the other post, which I would like to keep as more specifically about the Blue Eye Brown Eye Experiment.

So this is in response to Bec’s comment on damaging the children: :)

I agree Bec,
It’s a terrible thing to see people change their behaviour so readily and dramatically.

I had a similar thought in the learning class taught by Simon Hawkins. It occurred to me, when we were doing operant conditioning and classical conditioning experiments, that people are fundamentally very easy to manipulate and will in certain circumstances do thing that may seem vulgar to them at other times. It raises for me a whole bunch of questions about moral and ethical behaviour.

As you pointed out Jane acknowledges that it is easy to “damage” a child, meaning in this case “damage” a child’s behaviour and moral senses, through nothing more than social pressure. It demonstrates that mores or taboos are things that grow and build themselves and all it takes is one person in authority to start it off.

Interesting and relevant social psych stuff. Comments anyone?

I would also like to ask the question “what are the practical effects of this vulnerability that humans seems to have to social pressure”. I ask this in both the reactive and proactive way.

Should we simply study the phenomenon and be aware of it, to better equip society against misuse of this vulnerability? Surely knowing the problem will aid an individual in facing potential manipulation; OR

Should government through education be proactive in using this vulnerability to “manipulate” individuals into a more universally acceptable moral spectrum? Obviously if a child can be taught to discriminate, they can be taught not to using the same method. What moral issues does this raise in itself?

Metaphysical question I know, but with serious practical effects when placed in the context of the Murdoch dominate media or Government approved curriculum etc.

Let the discussion begin!
-*-WP-*-

Jane Elliott's Blue Eye Brown Eye Experiment

Howsit everybody,
I found the Blue Eye Brown Eye Experiment on youtube and have linked it here. You can now watch it by simply clicking on the clips to the left. Unfortunately they are not in order from top to bottom, but the top one is number one and there is only one other episode (number 5) not listed here, but you can find it easily here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXcO0Ah64rM

First time I watched this program was in year 11 at Canberra College in sociology and found it as interesting and disturbing then as I do now. Whether or not you agree with her method she certainly makes stark some thought-provoking issues and demonstrates quiet disturbingly the influence that the social setting or situation can have on cognition.

Enjoy,-*-WP-*-

Lets get going, all for the credit yeah!

Good morning/afternoon/whatever everyone,
Perhaps it is just me but this whole thing is new to me and somewhat frustrating, but at the same time interesting. At first it seems to be coercion into structured social interaction that some people might just not want to engage in for personal reasons (But you can see the advantage to the Psych Society for example). Putting aside the obvious anonymity of the internet and the confidence that tends to give people, shyness or reservation of comment should in my view not have a 25% impact in our academic pursuit. As morally ambiguous as this may be I do appreciate the usefulness of encouraging a "learning space", as it was put in the first lecture, that demonstrates and forces students into social observation/interaction. If we are studying the premises that all human behaviour can be seen in a social context then creating one obviously helps.

Another point would be – how does encouraging students to view each others drafts of essays and exchanging ideas sit with the universities plagiarism policy? Especially for the first Blog in which we are all drawing from the same pool of questions. I found it interesting the comment about referencing each other’s Blogs! What a concept. Worth discussion? Perhaps. And here we are in the perfect "space" to do so.

That all being said, I say hip hip hooray to anything that allows me to criticise the unit and get credit for it, in such a simple and direct way. So bring on the posts, bring on the discussion. I intend to have my Social Psychology say. ;) Student driven education... what an interesting thought I guess we’ll see if it works.

TTFN
-*-WP-*-

P.S. I am assuming that this is what we are supposed to use this space for, at least until we get into full essay mode and I am planning to raise questions about some general psychology issues I would love to hear other students opinions on. Cheers,
WP.