Category: Human Nature

Somewhat almost as horrific as death (in terms of the brain) appears to be fundamentally wrong. Not just wrong, but seriously wrong or completely incompetent.

Have you ever felt like that? Would you do anything to stop your peers ‘ ridicule? It seems to me that persistent and outright avoidance is a similar kind of fear. Somehow, in the above example, the brain related the target of chronic substitution overdue taxes to a huge fine. In reality, there is a huge penalty that could result directly from the failure to pay tax!

And why does the taxpayer continue to worsen the situation by refusing to fix the problem? In fact, I do not think that there is a ‘natural’ explanation for chronic delays, more than a rational explanation for depression or anxiety. The patient can feel that they can’t do anything; they are powerless or unable to advance significantly.

This is pure motivational paralysis— a sense of deep inner conflict and sometimes unable to even recognize the problem.

Procrastination Cure?

So what can we do about both pedestrian and widespread procrastination?

Okay, if my thoughts above are right, we can only hope to minimize contraception. When delays occur because they are genetically modified into our organisms, then there is no ‘cure,’ except perhaps several million years of further growth. Perhaps not even then.

More people are turning to technology for one prevention option: productivity applications, organizational systems like GTD, and other hacking systems, which is a good solution, and many of them are helpful. This works for you because this works. On the other hand, it can only be beneficial in the short term. Too wide for productivity hacks is pathological procrastination.

Another choice is negative (punishment) motivation. It is the brute-force approach to solve the delay, and it works for a while. An example of using negative reinforcement against you is to make a promise to give money to your most despised group if you don’t do a certain task. Unpalatable and self-abuse bordering, but it can be successful.

What about healthy motivation?

First, if you were already driven positively, then procrastination would not be an issue. Is there a way, so to speak, to ‘produce’ positive motivation? Can you be inspired positively to do something, even if you don’t start like this originally?

I guess it’s there. For example, after you have begun a task, it is easier to retain momentum. In reality, it actually begins to feel good to work on a job or project, even if it’s not a subject that you love or even like. Participants are drawn up in a way that encourages continuing to work on a project after it is started, as illustrated in a study by Kenneth McGraw.

Obviously, ‘starting’ a job or project can be a challenging subject, but I believe it should be discussed more in the future.

Many of the above options work, some very well, for simple delays. Chronic degeneration is definitely a harder nut to crack because it is all-embracing and exhausting. You can’t use a really negative incentive, for example, against a tax collector–they already have heavy fines or even time in prison! How much more can negative motivation be applied? And despite these potential punishments, they procrastinate. Buying a productivity app for your iPhone would, to say the least, be of questionable value.

The positive encouragement is also not a great influence if the reproductive is consistently resistant to even addressing the subject.

Everything is not lost on how to make any progress with procrastination. I believe it is possible to ‘treat’ both basic procrastination and chronic procrastination through attention management and metacognition.

If you get smarter and focus on the things you are doing— stuff you might not even be conscious of yet— you can at least improve your chances. At best, you will conquer the obstacles that were once unbeatable.

There are a number of ways to educate people. The Pomodoro technique can be used to step up your attention and develop good working habits.

Although I feel I threaten man-to-hammer syndrome, meditation is a great way to train attention and improve metacognition. It trains you to note the chatterbox in your mind, which distracts you, threatens you and implores immediate gratification. It helps us to know that, no matter how persuasive or seductive, you do not have to obey these orders.

Meditation also allows you to respond more closely to your feelings and to understand the patterns and circumstances that can cause them.

Types of Procrastination

There was a time when I trickled a lot. Procrastination was an important part of my life. So I have been learning and reading a lot about what delays are, what are the different types of delays, and how can I help myself avoid delaying.

One of the blogs has a few extremely insightful ideas about what delays are. If you know and want to avoid doing it, I agree that the first step is to explore the different types of procrastination patterns that may exist inside you.

1. Ability deficits- Skill deficits are the first form of procrastination. If you do not have the ability and the aspect in you that can assist your project or concept, you can wait. One easy way to avoid ability deficits is to begin quickly or simply leave the project and focus on something you are eligible for.
2. External obstacles–This is when you are distracted or when you think this isn’t the right time to start. ‘The best start time’ isn’t really an obstacle, because it’s almost always the right time. The best time to start is to match yourself and your setting. A disturbed brain procrastinates.
3. Emotional issues — Depression, loss of confidence, or even constant emotional tension are some of the main causes of this. This is because although you have all the skills and tools, you are unable to take real solid action to fulfill your tasks.
4. Addictive diversion -Some people are just searching for a way to behave by attempting to find answers to their problems. Their problem is that they are constantly looking for a solution to their dilemma that they want to stop.
5. Unknown inner truth — This is probably my explanation. Some of us agree that we are not allowed to do so. No matter how convinced or inspired we look from the outside, from the inside, we say that we are not going on the road. Your inner voice is procrastinating you.

It’s important to know why you’re going to beat it. Whenever you feel like you should not rush, make sure that you categorize it and step on with the most effective action.

Achieve the Life You Desire

Here is a different way of achieving your dreams, holding on to them, and achieving the life you want. This is a simple and practical exercise that takes a few minutes to complete but is worthy of reflection and can last a lifetime.

Create four columns for short bulleted lists using a blank sheet of paper. The first and second columns are from the heart. The heart answers fast with what you feel. The second and fourth columns are headed. The head offers a logical view with contemplation and calculated planning. Take a moment to make your four blank columns clear and remember the many other distractions that might lead you away from the idea of achieving the life you want. Go ahead and take a moment to prepare.

Mark the First Column ‘WANT’.

With the first bullet, list something that you want in the next ten days. Note, that this collection is from the heart. Don’t waste too much time worrying about your answer, just write down the first thing that comes to your mind and be honest with yourself. With the second paragraph, write down something you want in the next ten weeks. You may be inputting things that you want to do, things that you want to buy, or goals that you want to accomplish. In these words you won’t find the answers, the answer must come from your heart to what you want. Write down what you want in ten months in the fifth newsletter. Write down something you want in the next 10 years in the fourth and final bullet of the first line. The last can take a while, but make the bullet as big as your dreams.

‘To DO’ mark the second column.

For the very first bullet in the left-hand column, publish what you can do to get or get the first bullet in the first row. Now it’s time for your head to take the list as you need to plan an activity that helps you get what you want. For the second bullet, write down what you will do in the next ten weeks in order to accomplish what you want. And add the third element to accomplish what you want in 10 months. The final item is an event or procedure that leads to your 10-year objective. It completes the to-do personal list.

Sign ‘TO KEEP’ in the third column.

This line is from the heart again. The responses should be truthful and clear. The number of bullet points for this row is infinite, make as many as you like. Create a list of the things you have today that are important to you. List people you care for. List things you don’t want to compromise to get the things you want. List objects you now have that reflect things you previously desired. These could be people, things, relationships, personal characteristics, or values that are important to you. This is a list of things that you serve or do not want to lose. It can include religious belief, morality, or a sense of humor for some individuals. For some, a car, a home, a car house, or a family heirloom can be included in the list. Your relationship with your spouse or children may also be on the list. There’s no right or wrong answer, it’s just a list of things you want to hold.

‘THANKFUL’ marks the fourth and last line.

The last row is where the head addresses the chest. Check the list of precious things you’ve built in the third column that you want to hold. You must create a corresponding bullet in the fourth column for each of these elements as to how you express your gratitude. For example, if one of the objects you are proud of and want to keep in your vehicle, this may be important to you by washing and cleaning your car. If one of the items on your list is something you cherish for the memories they evoke, you can place this object in a place where you can often see it and peacefully reflect on it. If your list includes personal characteristics that you would not sacrifice, consider how these characteristics can be used or strengthened. Think about something you can do to sustain this personal conviction if your list contains references to your faith. If your list contains people or relationships, think about what you do to show the person on your list the importance. Think of the little things you do to show your appreciation. The things you do in relation to express appreciation may seem small to you but may be very important to the recipient. Show the people you want to ‘maintain’ that they are important to you.

We all occasionally postpone our tasks at hand due to various reasons, these reasons may include fatigue, laziness, unwillingness, or even lack of spare time to spend on these issues. This has also become the habit of others of delaying things that they have to engage in. This issue causes some trouble to us and those around in disregard to the deadlines given.

It was on a Monday morning and I had slept in, thanks to Thanksgiving. In Fact, it was twelve o’clock and I was free for the whole of the afternoon. As usual, I used to sit in front of the television after cleaning the house and myself silently staring endlessly at the screen with my fingers clicking on the remote. I later realized that I had a draft that was due on Thursday, but I justified my procrastination with some reasons like: ‘There is still more time to work on this assignment. Life nowadays is much faster and people in the 00s were supposed to organize and plan in order to keep up with the schedule, however, it seemed to me that more people were procrastinating than ever before. When I asked this person the reason behind why they procrastinated the main reason they supplied was that this task wouldn’t take much of my time, and so this pressure makes me work more efficiently and other excuses like some emergencies arising and other important things. Some of these reasons sounded very legitimate but I think that these reasons are just some excuses that are made for people’s fear of failure and also fear of lost security including the need for pressure.

Back in High school, I had a close friend, Lucas who dropped out of school because of his bad grades. As his close friend, I knew whatever he was going through and what he was doing until the period of final exams. He was always a smart and responsible student and laziness was not any factor that affected his bad grades. Lucas could not pick up the books for revision soon enough before the examination because he was always afraid of failure. Since his older brother has already achieved excellent academic records and also achieved greater careers. Lucas’s parents expected him to follow the lead from his brother’s footsteps. As a result of this, Lucas was more afraid of trying this because he feared that he would not accomplish his parent’s expectations. When he later came to realize the main problem it had already been too late.

It was already two o’clock in the morning, my computer was on and the coffee maker was still cooking, I was currently under a lot of stress and pressure. There wasn’t enough time left, this kept ringing in my head as I watched the blank piece of paper in front of me. I kept telling myself I could do it and also encouraging myself while my mind generated zero ideas for this final draft, which was due four hours before that time. Everyone I know is procrastinating, my relatives, friends, and even the people I know in the government. Back in Blue City, Mayor Chris had delays in getting rid of the major gangs in the city. He promised the people of Blue City during his elections that he was going to issue the policy that would stop these gangs from spreading to our communities.

Procrastination has been rooted in many different causes, this may include numerous distractions, lack of motivation, failure, and fear of uncertainty which leads to a negative consequence that concerns our careers, health, studies, and our personal qualities.

References

1. Abbasi, Irum Saeed, and Nawal G. Alghamdi. The Prevalence, Predictors, Causes, Treatments, and Implications of Procrastination Behaviors in General, Academic, and Work Setting. International Journal of Psychological Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, 2015, pp. 59-66.

In recent years, interest in the problem of procrastination has grown significantly. In the late 70s of the 20th century, the first studies of this problem were started, and the first publications on this topic were based on the clinical and advisory experience of its researchers. During these studies, a link was found between procrastination and personality characteristics. For an achievement-oriented society, procrastination is an individual problem. The constant pursuit of achievement leads to the fact that people are regularly faced with obligations that require them to be fulfilled within a tightly set time frame. Modern European civilization is just that. All this determines the growing interest of the scientific community in a deeper study of the phenomenon of procrastination. The word procrastination comes from the Latin word “procrastinates” (pro – forward, further, crastinus – tomorrow). The scientific term ‘procrastination’ was found by P. Ringenbach in 1977 in the book ‘Procrastination in a Person’s Life’. It should be noted that the phenomenon of procrastination itself has been noticed for a long time, modern researchers J.B. Burka, L.M. Yuen, J. Harriott, J.R. Ferrari, B. Tuckman, P. Steel, Ya.I. Varvaricheva, V.S. Kovylin, et al. For example, the Egyptians had two verbs in their language to denote procrastination: the first meant a good habit of avoiding unnecessary work and impulsive actions, and the second – was laziness when performing tasks necessary for survival. Also, in the works of ancient philosophers, there is often a condemnation of procrastination. So, Cicero believed that slowness is unacceptable in any business. Throughout human history, people have condemned or praised such behavior. However, real scientific analysis and research of this phenomenon have been carried out for no more than 40 years. Currently, there are many definitions of procrastination, in which the fundamental elements of this phenomenon can be distinguished – the deliberate postponement of doing things, and the subjective feeling of internal discomfort at the same time. Procrastination is the postponement of performing the necessary actions to achieve any set goal. Some authors consider procrastination as an irrational delay in behavior. In this case, the irrationality of behavior lies in the independent choice of a plan of action, despite the high probability that it will not be beneficial for the individual both from the material and from the psychological point of view. Other studies have shown the association of procrastination with some personality variables, such as low self-esteem, severe perfectionism, depression, and anxiety.

Procrastination as a phenomenon has several varieties. The basic variants of procrastination are often distinguished – behavioral and associated with postponing decisions. Milgram, one of the first researchers of procrastination, identified five of its types: 1) household – postponing household chores that should be done regularly; 2) procrastination in decision-making (including minor ones); 3) neurotic – postponing vital decisions, such as choosing a profession or starting a family; 4) compulsive, when two types of procrastination are combined – domestic and procrastination in decision-making; 5) academic – postponing the completion of study assignments, preparation for exams, etc. In the context of studying the relationship between procrastination and mental health, all types of procrastination are relevant. There is unevenness in research focused on specific types of procrastination. The most studied is academic procrastination. Obviously, it is much easier to study a sample of students than a sample of the adult working population. According to surveys by American authors, academic procrastination associated with educational activities is a common phenomenon for more than 70% of students. When writing term papers and preparing for exams, procrastination is recorded by one in four of the surveyed students. Almost 25% of the surveyed students recognize procrastination as a moderate or even severe problem, and the tendency to postpone work is noted as having a negative impact not only on the educational process but also on the overall quality of their life [21]. Academic procrastination contains two main components: 1) the tendency to postpone the completion of current and final assignments; and 2) the presence of anxiety associated with this postponement. Since procrastination is common among students, it is important to define its scope and its negative consequences. Let us turn to one of the significant generalizing meta-reviews of the problem of procrastination, made by P. Steel. There is a significant amount of empirical work on procrastination, including some that highlight aspects directly related to personality traits and mental health. All research can be divided into four main types: 1) characteristics of the tasks that contribute to procrastination; 2) the consequences of postponing behavior; 3) the individual characteristics of the procrastinators themselves; and 4) demographic differences. Research into the characteristics of tasks contributes to understanding the possible causes of procrastination. Evidence from research on the effects of procrastination looks at the immediate possible effects of procrastination behavior. Everything related to the study of individual differences was considered from the point of view of the traditional five-factor personality model. Finally, examining demographic data provides an opportunity to consider in which age and social groups procrastination is common. Procrastination means voluntarily choosing one task over others. Therefore, one cannot rationally postpone all tasks, but one can give preference to one and neglect others. Unless people randomly procrastinate, the very nature of this phenomenon has some influence on their decisions. In support of this thesis, in a study by R. Briody (1980), about 50% of the respondents answered that their delay in completing a particular task was associated with some of its characteristics. Two putative factors were suggested that could be associated with delay: the timing of the expected “rewards” and “punishments,” and the rejection of the task as such. It has long been noticed that the further the expected event in time, the less influence it has on the decisions of people (Levin K., 1935). Ainslie (1975) gave a historical analysis of this phenomenon from a psychological point of view, recognizing the phenomenon of impulsivity in its genesis, while Loewenstein (1992) adhered to a predominantly economic point of view – the theory of temporary discounting. There is a large amount of evidence for this phenomenon.

They say you’re supposed to start a public speech with something shocking; a mini anecdote, a surprising fact. Well in my case it’s that I wrote this speech last night. A little ironic, I will admit considering this is a workshop on efficient study habits, but anyway… I may be getting judged or commended depending on your individual views but I know I’m in good company. I think you all will be surprised to hear that many successful people over the years were master procrastinators. Victor Hugo, a renowned French poet and author struggled with procrastination even though he wrote some of the greats in screenplay such as Les Misérables and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. To fight dilatoriness he had his servant strip him nude in his study and not return with his clothes until the designated hour. Although I’m not French, or a poet, we seem to use the same sort of technique to fight this mental battle. Except in place of a servant, I have a dog. And he doesn’t come back. I may have just planted an unforgettable image in your minds but it’s quite alright because I have imagined the same of all of you. Now let me tell you I have a much bigger d-d-d-dog than any of you.

I believe that procrastination has, regrettably, developed a bad connotation over the years. Too often is it affiliated with stereotypical slackers, who are too lazy to do the work before the last minute. This, of course, is not true and I am personally insulted by this association for the simple reason that I am not a slacker. Those people who do procrastinate sometimes have just chosen to go about life in a different method that is more convenient for them. Rather than planning out their days, these people live in bit-by-bit, short-term situations, and this makes them happy. Some claim efficiency under pressure, others, a better product but we all gain experience.

So do procrastinators learn from their pasts? As Pierre Trudeau put it best; “The past is to be respected and acknowledged, but not worshipped; it is our future in which we will find our greatness.” Well, actually there are 2 types of people in this world, procrastinators with a positive mindset, and inexperienced ones. I, of course, do not speak for all procrastinators but I do know we have all contemplated these two thoughts; I should have and next time. I should have spread out my reading, next time I will do a chapter a day. I should have started studying sooner, next time I will. But the veteran procrastinators or shall I say, the majority of our students have adopted a positive outlook on the situations that have occurred. We respect and acknowledge an all-nighter, but unfortunately, we cannot stay awake to find greatness the next day.

If you enjoy delaying the inevitable workload piling onto your plate, I hope you delay responsibly. Procrastinating is a lifestyle. Whether you decide you enjoy the adrenaline and the crunch time nude or fully clothed, it should be respected when done properly.

In The Turn of The Screw, Henry James presents the darkness of human nature through the use of ambiguity; the vagueness of the plot and the unreliability of the narrator which makes it difficult to distinguish between what is good and what is evil, however, the darkness of human nature is definitely present through the characters of Peter Quint and Miss Jessel in their attempts in corrupting the children.

The governess represents “the good” through the role she plays as a home keeper and protector of the children, she places herself in the role of the traditional heroine and believes that her actions are purely based on the protection of the children. Laden with ambiguity, the novel leaves itself open for interpretation showing the binary opposites between good and evil but also hero and villain. The novel exudes darkness in human nature through the use of the apparitions we see throughout the novella. In the last chapter, Quint’s sudden appearance is most renowned as Miles is the first person who acknowledges Peter Quint, which in turn establishes the apparitions are in fact real, and not any hallucinations or irrational delusions which the governess might have. Robert B. Heilman argues that The Turn of the Screw is a symbolic representation of the conflict between good and evil. Heilman interprets the apparitions of Peter Quint and Miss Jessel as evil forces. He illustrates that the ghosts only appear to the governess because “evil lurks in subtlety before it strikes”. It is the responsibility of the governess to ‘detect and ward off evil.’ She must safeguard the children from the vile ghosts. The governess describes Miles and Flora as beautiful little cherubs whose only fault is their gentleness. Heilman views the children’s beauty as a ‘symbol of the spiritual perfection of which man is capable.’ Heilman illustrates the ghosts’ attempts to reach the children by explaining that evil forces will always try to control and enchant the human soul. Heilman continues to draw from the descriptions of Miles and Flora to support his theories. He points out that the two children are described as having an ‘angelic beauty’ and a ‘positive fragrance of purity’.

The governess portrays them as if they are perfect and beautiful in every way. This repeated vision of beauty, radiance, and innocence parallels with the psychological halo effect which is a cognitive bias or an immediate judgement discrepancy we make on someone based on the impression we already have on them, in other words, because the governess believes the children to be of angelic beauty she immediately assumes that their actions will reflect this and be of the same nature.

Karl Marx, John Mill, and Sigmund Freud are some of the most iconic philosophers and writers who focused their works on human nature. Each individual had a different view on human nature and progress, but religion ties into and is a key point in their work. In Karl Marx’s Early Writings, he refers to religion as “the opium of the people”, and is a strong critic of the relationship between religion and the human race. In The Future of an Illusion, Freud writes about the illusions we as humans experience that cloud our judgment and character, with religion being an agent of chaos that could damage human progress. And as for John Stuart Mill who wrote about utilitarianism, he became known as a philosopher that advocated for government to create the greatest amount of good with the least evil. He also dubbed Christianity as “a doctrine of passive obedience”; and how “it inculcates submission to all authorities found established.” To say these men were harsh critics of religion and the progress of human nature is an understatement, but each writer provides crucial reasoning behind the functions of our society and human conscience. Throughout history, religion has played a large role in the development of human beings. Without a variety of religious institutions, the course of human existence to this very day could have resulted in unrelenting chaos. To say religion is the perfect foundation for a high-functioning society is far from the truth, endless conflicts are the result of religious disputes. But without religion, human progress would be enormously harmed, and we would not be where we are today without it.

Out of all three thinkers here, John Stuart Mill is the most accurate in his assessment of human nature and potential. Mill champions individual liberty, as he sees an individual’s self-determination as the enabler of a better society. We as humans can make rational decisions that benefit society through our liberty. This ideology is also referred to as utilitarianism. Mill would define Utilitarianism as the principle which holds people accountable for their actions, or that actions are right in proportion as they promote happiness, wrong when they produce harm. Although Mill was a fierce defender of our liberties, he was also aware of how they could be abused. In his third chapter of On Liberty, titled “Of Individuality”, he writes “ No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity when in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act.” (Mill, 64). This quote is important on several levels. Mill preached about the ability of unconditional personal freedom but was aware of the harm that it could bring.

Mill’s feelings towards religion are very different from his faith in human nature. He is a strong believer that religion “is an illusion”, impeding progress. Growing up in an atheist household, with his father arguing against religion, it makes sense that Mill had the judgments he had that we know today. Mill, although not a believer in religion himself did not denounce it as much as Marx or Freud did. He rather believed that the functions of religion would be better if they were applied to the identity of the human race. By channeling one’s emotions and spirit, humanity would be able to progress. Mill placed intellectual and spiritual happiness ahead of any other aspect that contributes to human progress. In essence, he believes that the idea of utilitarianism is genuinely more religious than religion itself as it seeks to accomplish the greatest output of happiness and love amongst mankind.

John Mill’s writings on religion and human progress are tied to a lot of other important aspects of society, including the economy and women’s rights. Just as he believed that if humans focused their free will on bettering society, he also believed that an almost completely unregulated free market would benefit society. According to Mill, the financial harm from the free market is better for society as they experience more utility when governed by the doctrine of free trade. As for another matter of freedom, Mill was concerned with the maltreatment of women and wrote a piece titled The Subjection of Women. His wife, Harriet Taylor, who had a big impact on his life likely contributed to this worrying matter. In his work he championed equal rights for women, saying that the oppressive living and social conditions were deterrents to human progression. He also believed that some of the unequal conditions arose from the earliest twilight of society, and that “owing to the value attached to her by men, combined with her inferiority in muscular strength” (Mill, 137) compelled “obedience”.

One of the most crucial writers in human history who changed the way we think about political science is Karl Marx. Marx is the father of Marxism which has served as an elementary piece of political theory, especially for radical thinkers. According to his five stages of history, humans undergo: tribal/ primitive, imperialism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism/communism. Marx pushed for a revolution and inspired many generations to revolt (Lenin, Che, Neto, etc.). “Political revolution dissolves civil society into its parts without revolutionizing these parts and subjecting them to criticism. It regards civil society, the world of needs, of labor, of private interests, and civil law as the foundation of its existence”(Marx, 234). This quote from Marx’s Early Writings allows us to see how revolution could cure a shattered society. Marx’s struggles to accept the way of life in the times he lived in came from a variety of factors, one of which was religion.

Karl Marx had a variety of dissenting views towards religion, especially when compared to John Stuart Mill. These ideas were derived from the world’s asymmetric society, created by natural and social inequalities (especially societies with different classes). He even called religion “the opium of the people”. In his forward in his chapter “On the Jewish Question”, he criticizes Bruno Bauer who argued against the religious freedom for Jews (Marx, 211). Part of his objection to Bauer is that the Jewish people could be integrated into society without being “emancipated from religion”. This is one of the problems he has with religion, that it outcasts individuals who aren’t members of a certain religion. Citing America and France as examples where religion is not controlled by the state, but rather it’s a private concern for individuals, he believes that this is at least better than what he sees in most of Europe.

He goes on to preach that religious ideas are not a product of the “Christian state”, but instead the “free state”. This distinction speaks big of Marx’s morals. The ability to be religious does not come from religion itself, or the “Christian state”, but the unchecked utopia of a “free state” which allows individuals to find “fresh and vigorous political emancipation and religion” (Marx, 217). This connection between religious freedom and political emancipation falls right in line with Marx’s attitude toward the state and the alienation of the individual. Just as the proletarians are dominated by the bourgeoisie using modes of production, knowledge, and technology, the individual’s liberty is oppressed by the state and its powers.

Marx continues to attack religion by saying “The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man” (Marx, 244). Although there is some truth to the literal meaning of this phrase, Marx is blind to what benefits religion brings to man in society. Religion provides structure in the everyday lives of countless people, and on top of that gives a safe space where people can fall back on in times of need. We as humans can commit ourselves to religion because we may feel we have moral obligations to do so, not because someone tells us to.

Sigmund Freud was not only a philosopher but also a psychoanalyst who was fascinated by human nature. In his work The Future of an Illusion, he focuses on how contrary to its intentions, religion drives irrational human emotion, including aggressive and violent tendencies. Some of these instincts like murder, rape, or incest are used to drive human impulses. In some respects, he shared a similar idea about the state of nature with Thomas Hobbes. He also believed that our personality and adult lives are shaped greatly by painful memories and events as kids, as well as childhood fantasies.

Freud, who was of course fascinated by the mental state of human beings applied his psychoanalytic views to religion. To him, religion comes from helplessness and the unconscious mind’s need for wish fulfillment. God, who represents a father-like figure helped (or at least humans thought he did) people feel secure and absolve themselves of their guilt.

Aside from the aggressive impulses that religion created, Sigmund Freud also felt that religion has harmful implications on a community, alienating those who weren’t members of a certain religion. Fascinated by the relationship between religion and human nature, Freud said “Our knowledge of the historical worth of certain religious doctrines increases our respect for them, but does not invalidate our proposal that they should cease to be put forward as the reasons for the precepts of civilization.” (Freud, 40). Freud alludes to the idea that despite what the tenets of religion say about how they have formed our society, it is not belief systems that have made us who we are. Instead, he thinks that our barbaric urges from a state of nature lead to our predetermined lives.

Throughout human history, the relationship between religion and human progress has undergone substantial change. There have been countless wars and atrocities all in the name of religion. It is also true that religious leaders and institutions have blocked our progress. And because of this, it’s “God”, or the religious deities who are assigned the blame for it. According to some of these writers, Marx and Freud in particular, believe that religion promotes harm and leads to humans regressing, not progressing. I do not believe that this is true. Humans have been around for a very long time. Religion (in its many forms) has also been around for a very long time, and we have been able to coexist with it, without nearly toppling society because of it.

Mill writes about how religion could be better applied to his theory of utilitarianism. If humans focused on their liberation and passion then the human race would progress undoubtedly. Out of all three writers here, I think Mill has the best argument against religion, as he at least champions all humans to be happy and develop virtues. However, it’s as if Mill doesn’t even take into account real-life examples of how religion offers this too. Religion allows people to fall back on a community whether it’s in a time of need, or if they just want to be a part of something. Freud said that God is a “father figure” in the eyes of his worshipers. This is accurate, but it’s not necessarily a bad thing. He believes that it causes aggressive impulses in us, especially among children. On the contrary, I think that having a leader or somebody to look up to can be a good thing, especially when that figure promotes the well-being of others (which most forms of God do for the most part).

Overall, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, and John Stuart Mill who all championed human progress and personal liberties in their unique way ultimately were inaccurate in their assessments of religion. Each writer does believe that religion performs valuable functions to society, but believes that it is a deterrent to progression. Without religion, the course of human history would have been substantially more violent and gruesome, like one in a state of nature. Humans have long reaped the benefits of having religion as a source of stability, and as we continue to have it involved in our everyday societies, human progress will continue to grow.  

There are three monotheistic beliefs: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. These three faiths worship a specific god. Monotheism emerged from Egypt in the 14th century BCE (1353-1336 BC), and the worship of a single god proved to be exceedingly unpopular with the priestly schooling, as well as, most likely, the local population. During this period, the worship of deities was very particular to given cities and temples. We all know Judaism is the world’s oldest monotheistic religion, dating back almost 4,000 years. Followers of Judaism believe in one God who revealed himself through ancient prophets. The history of Judaism is essential to appreciating the Jewish faith, which has a rich heritage of law, lifestyle, and tradition. Jewish people believe there is only one God who has established a covenant, or specific agreement, with them. A Hebrew man named Abraham is known as the founder of Judaism. Jews believe that God made a covenant with Abraham and that he and his descendants were chosen people who would create a great nation. Their God communicates to believers through prophets and rewards good deeds while also punishing evil. Most Jews (with a few exceptions) believe that their Messiah has not yet come but will one day. Jewish people worship in holy places known as synagogues, and their religious leaders are called rabbis. The six-pointed Star of David is the symbol of Judaism.

Today, there are about 14 million Jews worldwide, with most of them residing in the United States and Israel. Traditionally, a person is considered Jewish if his or her mother is Jewish. While the Tanakh is considered the sacred text of Judaism, many other important manuscripts were composed in later years. There are various sects in Judaism, including Orthodox Judaism, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, and Humanistic Judaism.

Christianity is the most widely practiced religion in the world, with more than two billion followers. Christians base their beliefs on the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. While it began with a small group of adherents, many historians regard the spread and adoption of Christianity throughout the world as one of the most successful religious missions in human history. Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God—fully human and fully divine—and that by believing in him and following his teachings, they can inherit eternal life. Christianity traces its origins to the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth over 2000 years ago in Palestine. Christians believe that his father was the Holy Spirit of God, making Jesus both fully human and fully divine. His earliest followers came to believe that he was the Messiah, or messenger, sent by God to free God’s people from slavery, sin, and death. The sacred text of Christianity is the Holy Bible, which consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament contains the Hebrew scriptures of Jesus’ time, while the New Testament contains writings about Jesus Christ and the early church. Christianity has spread worldwide and is practiced by two billion people. As with any large group, Christianity has experienced various interpretations, disagreements, and struggles for power over the centuries, leading to the development of many different branches of Christianity that interpret the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in different ways. There are three major streams of Christianity: Orthodox, Protestant, and Roman Catholic, each with unique traditions and practices observed annually.

The rise of Islam is intrinsically linked with the Prophet Muhammad, believed by Muslims to be the last in a long line of prophets that includes Moses and Jesus. Muhammad was the prophet and founder of Islam, born in Mecca around A.D. 570. Muslims are the followers of Islam. They believe in one god, known as Allah, the creator, sustainer, and restorer of the world. The will of Allah, to which people must submit, is made known through the sacred scriptures, the Qur’an (often spelled Koran in English), which Allah revealed to his messenger, Muhammad. In Islam, Muhammad is considered the last of a series of prophets. Muslims believe that nothing can happen without Allah’s permission, but people have free will. Muslims celebrate Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha. Eid Al-Fitr marks the end of the month of Ramadan, while Eid Al-Adha falls on the tenth day of Dhu al-Hijjah.

Kant and Hobbes propose distinct theories regarding human nature which shows their different conceptions of ethics. Both philosophers define what it means to be morally “good” in their own way and this leads to their thoughts surrounding human life in its simplest form. Each different representation of human nature can be displayed through different laws and theories presented by each philosopher. There can be similarities found in-between the lines of each method presented but, there are mostly unique ideas separating the two philosophers. While Kant approaches each concept regarding human nature with complete rationality, Hobbes conceives it to be rationally self-interested. Thus, leading to their different perceptions of ethics in regard to human nature.

Hobbes believes that war is the greatest problem to exist among humans and it is thought that this problem arises from human nature. Self-interest becomes the driving force for every human and naturally even though everyone is equal, competition amongst people can arise. Every human needs certain resources to survive and there will never be a proper abundance of these things and this leads to scarcity among human societies. The true perception of human nature starts to unravel with the help of Hobbes’ theories surrounding it. This becomes the defining attribute for Hobbes in relation to human nature because he points out that since everyone wants something that someone else has, they will go to whatever lengths it takes to get that certain thing to fulfill their self-interests. According to Hobbes, self-preservation governs every voluntary human action that takes place and these actions are what define human nature (Hobbes Worksheet). He uses a set of laws to explain this concept of human nature and provides a better understanding of how the behavior of humans is subjective.

Each human can be denoted by this idea of the natural condition as explained by Hobbes. He describes this natural condition to be unique to humans and each characteristic that encompasses human nature can be explained by the concept of possessing a natural right to things. Hobbes defines this right as the “liberty to use anything and everything for self-preservation” (Hobbes Worksheet). This natural right can cause a bittersweet outcome regarding war because if used unregulated, war can ensue. But if used appropriately, peace can be obtained while following the guidelines provided by his Laws of Nature. Hobbes starts alluding to this concept that if the state of nature can alo be considered a constant state of war, people will want to attain peace instead of living in fear of one another. He continues to explain that peace can only be obtained if there is a mutual trust between the affected parties. This is where human nature and the natural condition play a vital role. Since each person is basically fighting for the same resources, it is safe to say that trust can be broken very easily based on this idea of self-preservation. This mutual agreement must be recognized by a common power over all the people. This individual becomes the governed Sovereign of each individual party included in the agreement and this constitutes the social contract (Hobbes Worksheet). According to Hobbes, without a social contract put in place, peace can’t be possible because all future agreements would be meaningless.

Kant believes that with every action, there is an agent leading to that action and a consequence that will follow. He uses this basis to explain his conception of human nature and the ethics that stem from this. Rationality presents itself in his methods as the reason for why humans do the things that we do. Motive and will in this instance have all of the moral worth and the end result lacks moral worth when it comes to human agents. In regard to rationality, Kant believes that all human agents are able to differentiate which end result should be pursued, leading to this possession of freedom in relation to rationality. If the right action for the right motive is chosen and can be supported by the categorical imperative, then that portrays a good will. A good will “is good in all circumstances and in that sense is an absolute or unconditioned good” (Kant pg. 17). Once the definition of good will is presented, Kant’s interpretation of human nature can be examined more closely with the help of his groundwork.

Kant’s basic groundwork can help lead to a better understanding of what good will actually entails. He begins to explain that free will allows the person to choose their own motive and this can relate to what his definition of “good” means. This can relate to his overarching view in regard to human nature because although we may be influenced by our biology or culture, we have the opportunity to use our rationality to make choices. But there are laws put in place that need to be followed. In this context, moral laws are universal and necessary to human nature in general. Motive becomes necessary when figuring out if the act is being acted upon for the sake of duty because its right, or if it has to do with desire. Reason becomes the determining factor when looking at if the duty is being acted upon because it is right or if there is inclination involved driving the person to complete the duty. Desire then becomes orally irrelevant because if the action can be done just for reason and the right reason, the desire to want to do it does not have to exist. Following desires can be seen at best as nonmoral but doing what I wanted if reason forbids thr action is considered immoral. All of these aspects pertaining to the discovery of the categorical imperative is vital when trying to decipher the meaning behind it in general.

Kant’s categorical imperative is considered moral and universal/necessary. He states that “the groundwork of the categorical imperative is rational nature as an end in itself” (Worksheet). The major difference between the categorical and hypothetical imperative is that the categorical imperative is grounded upon rational nature as opposed to want. Therefore, the categorical imperative is moral because the way it operates is rational. Desire is not taken into account when thinking about the categorical imperative. Since the hypothetical imperative is based solely on desire, it is called nonmoral as it is impossible to make such desires universal or absolute. There may be cases where rationality and desire play a role in the decision-making process, but if desire is the only thing that prescribes action, it would fall under the hypothetical imperative. Kant goes on to explain how humans’ matter and this should be a vital role when defining the characteristics associated with human nature. This is why the rational nature of human beings plays a key role in the categorical imperative, because it serves as an end in itself. This gives us a necessary and universal approach to how we need to treat each other. The hypothetical imperative does not operate in this way because it is based on the means of desire. When desire comes into the mix, it becomes a means to an end in itself. The second expression of the categorical imperative can be explained as treating people as an end and never as a means of an end. Rational nature has become quite important here, because if we always treat others as a means to an end, we must do so in such a way that respect is bestowed upon each individual. People cannot be used for personal gain, no matter how much that person might be availing.

Even though there are many contrasting aspects to each philosophers’ methods, there are some similarities. Freedom does play a role behind the scenes in both philosophies because it is not mentioned outright. For Hobbes, freedom of choice conveys itself through the way people are able to make agreements with one another. They may be predisposed agreements, but each party is able to pick which agreement is worth investing trust in. The only catch here is that when the “contract” is set in place, it is not beneficial for either of the parties to go against the trust put in place. Kant approaches freedom in a similar regard. He says that humans are allowed to act on motives, but they do have to be rational and acted upon for the right reason. There are a lot of boundaries and rules to be followed in relation to each of the methods described here. The definition of what it means to be “good” is also a vital role in what human nature means to Hobbes and Kant. They each have their own explanation for it but regardless there is an overarching theme of good will between the two philosophers.

Human nature is a difficult thing to pinpoint even with the help of science to potentially back up each theory. Hobbes and Kant provide very diverse approaches to this concept but maintain a similar style in regards to rationality and how it plays a role in decision making.

Social psychology is the scientific study of how people’s behaviour, thoughts, feelings, actions, belief and moral conduct changes significantly when interacting with others in a social setting that could either be a real life, such as a prison institution, or an imagined one set up solely as a case study, or experiment to measure results (McLeod 2007).

Two psychologists, Philip Zimbardo and Stanley Milgram, carried out a number of conformity experimental studies to explore and understand why people’s behaviour changed and why they conformed, and exercised obedience to authority, despite feeling morally convicted. However, the participants still complied. Zimbardo’s well-known experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment, and Milgram’s Obedience to Authority experiment, which are still being debated today and referred to as the two most famous experiments in psychology, despite the ethics and methodology used. Both psychologists observed, how individuals conformed to obey orders from authority figures, and carried out abhorrent acts that were inhumane causing a great deal of psychological, mental, emotional damage to individuals under their care. The subjects’ behaviour also changed resulting in them becoming obedient to authority, rather than challenging being on the receiving end of such cruel and mental abuse (Russell & Gregory, 2010).

The aim of this study was to investigate how far people would go, in carrying out an instruction if it were to harm another person. Milgram wondered how easily ordinary people could be affected by atrocities.

Milgram’s methodology was a laboratory experiment, to determine how far a person would go to obeying an instruction, even if it meant causing harming to another human being (McLeod 2007). Milgram recruited 40 male volunteers for a lab experiment. The male participant ages ranged from 20 to 50, their jobs were a combination of unskilled to professional. Each participant to be paid $4.50, which is the equivalent $38.04 today, for just turning up. The roles were split into learner or teacher. Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were set-up for this experiment, one for the learner who would be strapped to a chair with electrodes and, the other room for the teacher and experimenter (Milgram) with an electric shock generator. The learner then had to learn a pairing of words and given four possible choices. Each time the learner failed to identify the correct pairing would receive an electric shock ranging from 15 volts (mild) to 450 (highly dangerous). The learner had been debriefed and aware the electrical shocks had a placebo effect, acted up to the role well and made it seem very real. The learner deliberately gave many wrong answers, which increased the intensity of the shocks. During the experiment, the learner became very distressed and repeatedly asked for the experiment to end. The teacher, unaware of the placebo effect of the electric shock, strongly voiced his concerns of the damage it appeared to be causing the learner and, at one point, refused to continue.

The experimenter ordered the teacher to continue and reassured the teacher they would take full responsibility for any harm caused to the participant (Russell & Gregory, 2010).BThe findings of this study revealed, that 65% (two-thirds) of the participants that were teachers continued at the highest 450 volt level. All participants continued at 300 volts. Milgram’s experiments were in laboratories, so they had no experience on real life situations. It is suggested that Milgram during this experiment, failed to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the participant in his care. The learner’s right to withdraw from the experiment at any time was not exercised.

Ordinary people are likely to follow the instructions of authority even to the extent of killing an innocent person. Obedience to power is rooted in us from the way we are brought up. People tend to obey other people’s orders, if they recognise their authority is morally just. This response to legitimate power is learned in a variety of situations, such as the family, school, and workplace.

However, critics raised questions to the validity of the study and refuted its findings. Why was the study carried out on male volunteers? Why did the study not include any female participants? It had ethical issue like deception, like why were learners not told about the details of experiment? The environment was very stressful, and volunteers safety was not taken into consideration (https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html)

Despite Milgram video recording his experiment, which would suggest the participants consented to the experiment. However, not all participants were fully briefed or made aware of the risks or harm involved. A level of deception played a huge part, as the teacher was unaware the shocks given to the learner had a placebo effect that would not cause them any harm. The teacher reluctantly continued giving electric shocks, even after hearing the learners crying and demanding the experiment to be stopped. The teacher complied to commands given by an authority, despite a moral conscious.

The learner was playing his role in the experiment, but the teacher was unaware the shocks were a placebo stimuli. The use of deception had to play a part in the experiment, to measure the results of the study, which would have shown how far the participants would have gone to conform. Comparing this experiment to Zimbardo’s, which was conducted to find out whether the atrocities reported among guards, in American prisons were due to sadistic guard personalities or had more to do with the prison environment.

In 1971, Zimbardo conducted a mock prison experiment in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building. They recruited 24 healthy white male college students for the two-week experiment. The personality tests, and clinical interviews carried out prior to the experiment showed them all to be normal. Each person would receive $15 a day for their participation (Lunt 2009). Zimbardo divided the roles into 12 prisoners, and 12 guards. Zimbardo decided to play the role of superintendent and briefed the guards to exercise control. Zimbardo feared the participants would not take the role serious but was shocked at how quickly they took to their roles. Zimbardo’s team arranged for the city police to pick up the prisoners from their homes, hand cuff and search them and then, take them to a police station. This is where they were fingerprinted and placed in a cell. Whilst blind-folded they were transported to the mock prison (Lunt 2009).Upon arrival, the prisoners were stripped naked, sprayed, and made to stand naked in the cell yard. The guard’s behaviour became very disturbing and degrading towards the prisoners. The psychological and mental abuse caused to the prisoners led to some breaking down, crying uncontrollably, becoming despondent and disorientated. The prison was dark with no natural daylight. By the fifth day, four prisoners had broken down and been released. One prisoner had to be released 36 hours into the experiment due to his mental state. Then, a couple of days later a further three prisoners were released, with a fifth prisoner developing a psychosomatic rash over his entire body, as a result of rejection by a mock parole board (Whitbourne 2018). A female psychologist and Zimbardo’s colleague visited the mock prison and witnessed the brutality of the experiment first-hand. She was angry with Zimbardo and pointed out the young men were suffering. She blamed Zimbardo, and held him responsible for allowing this to happen, and failing to recognise the suffering and harm the prisoners had endured. Zimbardo had become so engrossed in the experiment he lost sight of reality, and the safety of the prisoners. The next day Zimbardo terminated the study permanently (Lunt 2009).

According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison experiment shows the powerful role that a situation can play in human behavior. Because the guards were placed in a position of power, they began to behave in ways they would not normally behave in their daily lives or other situations. Based on the supporting evidence, Zimbardo’s experiment was considered more brutal as this was emphasised in the interviews conducted from the guards and prisoners. According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison experiment has revealed how people will easily adapt to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotypical as prison guards.

Zimbardo’s experiment was criticised the most, because he did not care about the safety of the prisoners. They suffered at the hands of the guards, by experiencing physical and mental torture. Conformity was key for the prisoners, otherwise there would have been repercussions. The ethical issues using human subjects as experiments has since changed to protect the safety of the participants – what went wrong? Did the participants consent, was there any protection from harm, did the prisoners feel shame for their role? Zimbardo could have spared the prisoners distress, had he not taken on a dual role.

Ethical guidelines changed to provide safer guidelines to protect participants after the Zimbardo and Milgram studies (Pastin 2013). Zimbardo invited all the participants back to engage in a discussion after the experiment which was video recorded. The prisoners described how they felt degraded, shame and humiliation at the hands of the guards, how they were still suffering from psychological effects after the experiment. The guards felt guilty and shocked hearing how the cruelty they unleashed and lengths they went to exercise power and authority harmed the prisoners. The guards tried to justify their actions they were attempting to make the experiment real to achieve the desired results and outcome for the experiment.

A study of obedience to authority in a real-life scenario will now be discussed. The study to determine, how many nurses who take orders over the phone from a doctor and comply, irrespective if it goes against regulations, and strict guidelines.

A research was conducted and during the process, there were only 22 actual evening nurses who on the night shift, unaware they were part of a study. During the night shift, the nurses had received a phone call from an unknown Doctor requesting they administer 20mg of astroten to patients. Although administering this dose would have been fatal to the patients, the nurses conformed to the instructions, and were about to inject it.

There were several ethic codes that were broken in this experiment. The nurses first of all, were not allowed to receive instructions over the phone by an unknown Doctor, and second of all the maximum dose that could have been administered was 10MG, and this was not allowed for the ward to carry out.

The Milgram experiment was held in a laboratory and carefully supervised. The learner had been briefed and given the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time. Deception played a huge part as the teacher was completely unaware of the placebo effect of the experiment, and huge concerns for the safety of the learner.

In contrast to Milgram’s experiment, Zimbardo’s was more brutal, and caused lasting psychological damage. Hofling replicated a similar study to Milgram’s, except the nurses were unaware they were in a real-life experiment. The nurses were deceived, as they were not made aware, they were in a study therefore there was no informed consent.

Based on the supporting evidence Zimbardo’s experiment was considered more brutal as this was emphasised in the interviews conducted from the guards and prisoners (Zimbardo, Haney, Banks and Jaffe, 1971). Transcripts from the experiment, revealed the true extent of the psychological harm that came to the prisoners (Zimbardo et al, 1971). Some of the guards were interviewed on why they behaved in such a brutal and inhumane way (Zimbardo et al, 1971). One guard in particular, who was nicknamed ‘John Wayne,’ (Zimbardo et al, 1971) was extremely brutal towards the prisoners. When he was interviewed, he stated that he wanted to aspire in his role as a guard and give something to the researchers to observe on (Zimbardo et al, 1971).

The British psychological society, who set out the code of ethics for psychologists (British psychological society, 2018). They follow four key elements, which are; respect, competence, responsibility and integrity (British psychological society, 2018). These are ingredients, which in modern society would make a professional psychologist (British psychological society, 2018). According to the British psychological society, and their code of ethics and guidelines, the Zimbardo study would have breached them severely and would have potentially led to a criminal conviction, had the experiment been conducted today (British psychological society, 2018).

The Milgram experiment could be replicated in today’s times (British Psychological Society, 2018). Although, there was deception involved, this would have been necessary to achieve accurate results from the study (British Psychological Society, 2018). However, according to the British psychological society, full informed consent would need to be given, the risk and harm involved in the experiment would need to be outlined in full by the researcher (British psychological Society, 2018).

The ethical problems with the Hofling study is slightly different to that of Milgram’s and Zimbardo’s. The Hofling study was a replica of Milgram’s experiment. Although the nurses did not come out of the experiment with any lasting psychological harm (British psychological society, 2018), but according to the British psychological society the researchers would have to obtain informed consent, from the participants (British Psychological Society, 2018) and again the potential of risk, and harm would have to be relayed to them. The participants would have had to, according to the British psychological society been given the choice to withdraw from the experiment at any time (British psychological society, 2018).

In conclusion the experiments conducted, were not worth the psychological harm that came to its participants. The harm that came to the participants in Zimbardo’s experiment, was not worth the cost to the participants mental, and physical health. However, if conducted in an ethical manner these experiments could prove vital, as seen in the Hofling and Milgram’s studies.

References

1. McLeod, S. (2007). Social Psychology, [online]. Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-psychology.html (Accessed: 23/10/2020).
2. Horn, S. (2018). Prison Legal News, [online]. Available at: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2018/oct/12/landmark-stanford-prison-experiment-criticized-sham/ (Accessed on 23/10/2020).
3. Tartakovsky, M. (2018). Zimbardo’s Infamous Prison Experiment: Where the Key Players Are Now [online]. Available at: https://psychcentral.com/blog/zimbardos-infamous-prison-experiment-where-the-key-players-are-now/ (Accessed on 23/10/2020).
4. Toppo, G. (2018). Inside Higher Ed, [online]. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/06/20/new-stanford-prison-experiment-revelations-question-findings (Accessed on 23/10/2020).
5. Cherry, K. (2019). Very Well Mind, [online]. Available at: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-stanford-prison-experiment-2794995 (Accessed on 23/10/2020).
6. Gray, P. (2013). Why Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment Isn’t in My Textbook, [online]. Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/freedom-learn/201310/why-zimbardo-s-prison-experiment-isn-t-in-my-textbook (Accessed on 23/10/2020).
7. Bachman, R. and Schutt, R. (2012) The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice, (5th Edn), Chapter 3, page 57 Research Ethics and Philosophies California: Los Angeles
8. Lunt, P. (2009). Stanley Milgram:Understanding Obedience and Its Implications Russell & Gregory, 2010
9. Zimbardo, P and White, A. (1971). Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment [online]. Available at: https://web.stanford.edu/dept/spec_coll/uarch/exhibits/spe/Narration.pdf (Accessed on 23/10/2020).
10. Perry, G. (2012). Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. [online]. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zUk1AAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=milgram+experiment&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwia6MKvyMvsAhWytXEKHQXKC-MQ6AEwAnoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=milgram%20experiment&f=true (Accessed on 23/10/2020).
11. Banyard, P. and Flanagan, C. (2011). Ethical Issues in Psychology [online]. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FGDFBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT65&dq=milgram+and+ethical+issues&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjn8e-jz8vsAhU2VBUIHfh2BlsQ6AEwBHoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=milgram%20and%20ethical%20issues&f=false
12. Pastin, M. (2013). Making an Ethical Difference [online]. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qo9-rmNMBLMC&pg=PT38&dq=Zimbardo+experiment&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5xJiGu9DsAhUqUhUIHaTUAHo4ChDoATAFegQIBRAC#v=onepage&q=Zimbardo%20experiment&f=true (Accessed on 23/10/2020).

Life is all about making choices. Sometimes making the wrong choices can have a negative impact on life. Human nature is a prime example of life choices. Human nature is more than just feelings and compassion, it’s instinct, a way of living, the way someone was raised to think or believe. This has been portrayed in a plethora of different events based on 3 short stories conveying the contrasting characteristics such as selfishness, influence, and survival.

Selfishness is everywhere in this world and is heavily portrayed throughout “The Veldt”. The act of being selfish would be a person showing a lack of consideration for others but instead focusing or concentrating on oneself. Throughout the story, it’s known that Wendy and Peter were raised solely on technology. This created a different version of the family that George and Lydia did not appreciate. After learning of their parent’s new mindset, the children took it upon themselves to express their anger and selfishness in more ways imaginable. Towards the end of the story, Peter says, Don’t let them do it! Don’t let father kill everything,” (Bradbury). That shows just how manipulative and selfish those kids are. Not only that but because Peter couldn’t take that George wanted a better life for them, peter and Wendy decided that the best option would be to kill their parents. It’s hard to tell who would be to blame here after learning this is how they lived their whole lives. Technology is all they know. In the second to last page, it reads, “You’ve let this room and this house replace you and your wife in your children’s affections. This room is their mother and father,” (Bradbury).

It’s easy to be influenced as a child. That’s why it’s always better to watch the surrounding people. Influential actions and deeds can leave long-lasting impressions on someone’s mind or body, unfortunately not all lasting impressions are good. There can be negative impressions that can impact life in ways unlikeable. An example of a negative influence would be General Zaroff in “The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell. General Zaroff influenced Rainsford to go against his beliefs and play his twisted game. In the beginning, when Zaroff and Rainsford met for the first time, Rainsford believed General was great. That is until it was revealed that Zaroff was a psychopath who hunted actual human beings. On the fifth page, Zaroff says, “…I’m a hunter, not a murderer,” (Connell). Rainsford did not agree with Zaroff’s new way of thinking at all. He saw what Zaroff was doing as murder. General Zaroff and Ivan gave Rainsford a chance to play his game. At first, he was skeptical about the whole idea of being hunted by General Zaroff. Soon enough, Rainsford gave in and decided to play, not only that but he played to his best abilities. As the game is being played, Zaroff’s killer ways are influencing Rainsford to do things he would never do. In the end, Rainsford used his knowledge if hunting and won the game. Its known how Rainsford changed throught the story, because in the end he wanted revenge and ended up murdering both Ivan and general Zaroff. “One of us is to furnish a repast for the hounds. The other will sleep in this very excellent bed. On guard, Rainsford….” He had never slept in a better bed, Rainsford decided,” (Connell).

Most people will do anything to survive, even if it means to kill others. Survival is about staying alive, even through the toughest challenges in life. This is one of the main themes in the story “The Lottery”. The first few pages reveal what it’s like to follow a tradition every year; but not just any tradition, the lottery tradition. The lottery is based around a small town of people that hosts an annual “lottery” every year. The best part about it is that the “winner” gets stoned to death! The children would start collecting their stones and prepare themselves for what’s to come. Old Man Warner does not believe the lottery should still be conducted the way it is. On the first page, it reads, “The original paraphernalia for the lottery had been lost long ago, and the black box now resting on the stool had been put into use even before Old Man Warner, the oldest man in town was born,” (Jackson) Some of the citizens were not always happy about the results, but there was never anything they could do about it. It’s their tradition. Originally Bill Hutchinson received the black slip, but Tessie argued that he did not receive enough time to select a slip. Which caused them to draw again and unfortunately Tessie received the black dot. The readers are also reminded about how they’ve forgotten their ways. “Although the villagers had forgotten the ritual and lost the original black box, they still remembered to use stones,” (Jackson) These are all examples of how people will do whatever it takes to survive another day.

In the end, we find out that one’s human nature will almost always impact life. Human nature, even if it’s more negative than positive. In today’s society, compared to when these stories were written, the readers were exposed to how things have drastically changed. Anyone can be influenced, selfish, or forced to survive, but it’s mostly about how far someone will go to achieve those things.