Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Revenge Really Does Taste Sweet 234

Posted by CowboyNeal from the served-cold-of-course dept.
Wizzy Wig writes "The Toronto Star is reporting on scientific experiments showing a link between revenge and the 'pleasure center' of the human brain, thus putting a nature spin on something heretofore thought of as a nurture based, or learned, emotion."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Revenge Really Does Taste Sweet More

Revenge Really Does Taste Sweet

Comments Filter:

  • Let's admint it... revenge feels good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 28, 2004 @11:58AM (#10096326)
    Revenge is always one of those things that, besides are better ethics not too, always makes one feel good.

    It's never a matter of being right or wrong, it's that feeling of justice I suppose, the feeling that we have, in our eyes, made things right in the world .

    Of course, it's also immensely selfish and one sided.

    Cheers,
    James Carr [bluefuzion.com]

    • Re:Let's admint it... revenge feels good (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      " Revenge is always one of those things that, besides are better ethics not too..."

      So, did you get revenge on your English teacher?
    • I just enjoy the opportunity make an evil laugh and some melodramtic statement.

    • Re:Let's admint it... revenge feels good (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think its deeper than this. Or at least for me it is. Revenge is a natural instinct to lash out at those who cause you some form of injury or injustice. The act of vengeance, whether you think about it or not, is you punishing that person (or group, etc) so that they do not want to injure you again. It is a proactive, self defense mechanism, designed to prevent future recurrences of the same injury or injustice.

      My 2 cents.

      • Re:Let's admint it... revenge feels good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by E_elven ( 600520 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:41PM (#10096558) Journal
        Revenge fulfills two basic instincts: survival (by ensuring the perceived threat no longer exists) and validation (by making one feel stronger than the revengee).

        Frankly, I don't see why this 'study' was necessary.
      • Revenge is a natural instinct to lash out at those who cause you some form of injury or injustice.

        Humans have a strong desire for justice. I forget which one, but I saw a television show where a child was given some candy to split up between him and another child. He decided how much to give the other child, but the other child could, if he wanted to, have the adult take all the candy away if the deal wasn't fair. Now, common sense would tell you that some was better than none, even if the other had mo
    • Check out this article [healthcentral.com]. It talks about "altruistic punishment," which is exacting revenge on behalf of a stranger.
    • Of course, it's also immensely selfish and one sided.

      Not necessarily, at least in my view.

      Consider a serial killer. Serial killers act on what is tantamount to instinct. After a lifetime of abuse, the behavior they exhibit somehow provides them with relief or a sense of sanity.

      When a serial killer is caught, they should be incarcerated and every attempt should be made, in good faith, to help them deal with what's inside of them. If and when they're released, and end up killing again, one of two

      • When a serial killer is caught, they should be incarcerated and every attempt should be made, in good faith, to help them deal with what's inside of them.

        When a serial killer has applied for a Darwin award, they should be rewarded. That is the point of the social compact, our society, and our laws. Remove the aberrations from the gene pool.

    • It's good scientists and general people are focusing more on emotions and thoughts these days. But forgive me for saying this, but these people haven't got a clue about the powers of the mind.

      Science would like us to believe that we are like machines. If X happens, then we feel Y, etc. Just like a nice automaton.

      But personal experience tells me, maybe I'm wrong, I'm just suggesting this for now, that we DECIDE how to feel every moment! We may not be aware of it on a daily conscious-level however, and then

  • Only A Month Late (Score:2, Informative)

    by Romothecus ( 553103 )
    A little behind. [nytimes.com] If this could have been posted before the NY Times article went archival...

  • Of course it tastes sweet.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by js3 ( 319268 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:00PM (#10096337)
    any human could tell you that. Who are these scientists? aliens?
  • How is this slashdot worthy? Are we all a bunch of revenge-warring geeks looking for some deserved payback on the bullies of yesteryear?

    Anyway. I'm not really sure what the point of this research really was. We all knew that revenge makes us feel better to some point. I would rather see a study on the long term effect of that exacting that revenge on those who wronged us. The aftermath of it all. I didn't see anything where they followed up with those men they studied to see how they felt about it a week,
    • How is this slashdot worthy? Are we all a bunch of revenge-warring geeks looking for some deserved payback on the bullies of yesteryear?

      I would say yes! Going by all the antics that happen in these forums, there is some truth to what you say. :)

    • Re:Um and your point being? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by druhol ( 683463 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:23PM (#10096481)
      The point is that revenge has a biological basis; it's not a learned behavior, as was previously thought. This has serious implications about human behavior and society.
      • Well I guess it's just me. I have never thought of it as a learned behavior. I have always thought of it as an instinct. Small children display a need for revenge. Animals display it as well. It seems a perfectly natural thing. If you poke something, it pokes back.

        I wonder where people got it in their heads that this was learned behavior to begin with?
      • I don't see how the study proves anything at all. Anything that elicits an emotion must stimulate the corresponding brain region; otherwise you wouldn't feel the emotion.

        If you play Beethoven for a classical music lover, it will stimulate their pleasure center; if you force them to hear the same Beethoven number 50 times in a row while giving them a painful electric shock, I predict that the 51st playing (without the shock) will now stimulate the "displeasure" center. So what does that prove about a bio

        • So what does that prove about a biological basis for Beethoven?

          I basically agree with you. The nature/nurture continuum here is largely irrelevant. Any experience is going to have its physical correlate in the brain- but the whole idea of nurture as it is popularly espoused is contrary to this idea. But it is a matter of course. On the other hand, one should I think resist equating nature with genes. The neural machinery for vision does not fully develop until exposure to light. Nature should be somethin

    • Re:Um and your point being? (Score:5, Funny)

      by danamania ( 540950 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:33PM (#10096522)
      How is this slashdot worthy? Are we all a bunch of revenge-warring geeks looking for some deserved payback on the bullies of yesteryear?

      DIE SCO DIE *stab stab stab*

      ahhhhhh.

      of course not.

  • Tastes sweet but smells foul! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:01PM (#10096343)
    After 17 years of marriage, a man dumped his wife for a younger woman.

    The downtown luxury apartment was in his name and he wanted to remain there with his new love so he asked the wife to move out and then he would buy her another place.

    The wife agreed to this, but asked that she be given 3 days on her own there, to pack up her things.

    While he was gone, the first day she lovingly put her personal belongings into boxes and crates and suitcases.

    On the second day, she had the movers come and collect her things.

    On the third day, she sat down for the last time at their candlelit Dining table, soft music playing in the background, and feasted on a pound of shrimp and a bottle of Chardonnay.

    When she had finished, she went into each room and deposited a few of the resulting shrimp shells into the hollow of the curtain rods. She then cleaned up the kitchen and left.

    The husband came back, with his new girl, and all was bliss for the first few days. Then it started, slowly but surely. Clueless, the man could not explain why the place smelled so bad.

    They tried everything; cleaned &mopped and aired the place out. Vents were checked for dead rodents, carpets were steam cleaned, Air fresheners were hung everywhere. Exterminators were brought in; the carpets were replaced, and on it went.

    Finally, they could take it no more and decided to move. The Moving Company arrived and did a very professional packing job, taking everything to their new home...

    ...including the curtain rods.

  • What this might mean (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kjones692 ( 805101 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [rezinagrobyc.eht]> on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:02PM (#10096349)
    What this means to me is that, if we want to be civilized humans, we have to go against these basic, animalistic instincts. There are lots of things that feel good in the short term, that we'd all love to do, that stimulate the same pleasure centers in our brain... but if we want to be able to function as a society, we pretty much have to learn to value the common good over petty revenge. Then again, there might be a logical reason for this connection. Take the highway example mentioned. Perhaps, by not letting the person back in, we're making it so that he won't be in a position to cut more people off... thus increasing the common good. So, do we let him back in and face his poor driving once more, or do we respond in kind? On a basic, primal level, we choose the second. However, I think that revenge tactics like this are only effective in the short term. In more long-term situations, like trying to function in a community where you interact with the same people every day, revenge only invites escalation, whereas forgiveness diffuses the problem before it can. Is anyone else here thinking "Prisoner's dilemma"?

    • Re:What this might mean (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The_Mystic_For_Real ( 766020 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:10PM (#10096406)
      Going against basic instincts can eventually cause insanity or at least mental instability.

      I think a better solution is to find a safe outlet for these urges. Sports are a fairly common choice, but there is a wide range of activities that allow you to vent your frustrations without driving dangerously or beating spouses/offspring.

      • Re:What this might mean (Score:4, Informative)

        by Rallion ( 711805 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:39PM (#10096550) Journal
        FPS games work well.
      • Going against basic instincts can eventually cause insanity or at least mental instability.
        Oh good grief, welcome to the 60's.

        You don't have to do something just because you "feel like it." If you're so interested in the evolution of impulse, stop and think why we (humans) also evolved the ability to override those impulses, and how it separates us from the (other) animals.

      • Re:What this might mean (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bahwi ( 43111 )
        But there is a lot of research going on about neural plasticity(check out google). So maybe we can develop a way not to go against it, but to eliminate it entirely? The research is still new, but very promising. It has debunked the old myth that the brain is hardwired permanently in a way, but it is quite malleable. A good book on this is "Destructive Emotions" which has many good references to various experiments on neural plasticity and meditation. Including a near-complete suppression of the human "start
      • Do you honestly believe that humans are totally creatures of base instinct, with no mental controls at all? I don't think that's true in the slightest. Yes, there are definite factors that can influence human behaviour, but at no point does the upper-most level of the human mind have a lack of control.

        We're socialized to see revenge as a good thing. When was the last time you saw media that showed someone getting revenge, which was portayed as justified, and then the revenge turned out to be a thing tha
      • Going against basic instincts can eventually cause insanity or at least mental instability.

        It doesn't have to. Repression (what I assume you are referring to) is basically a brute force resistance against our emotions and I'm sure most slashdotters have figured out that it doesn't work. It just feeds two conflicting emotions which creates internal turmoil and - like you said - at it's extreme will drive someone to a breakdown. But repression isn't the only way to go against your basic instincts.

        I've f

    • Re:What this might mean (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mothz ( 788133 )
      revenge only invites escalation, whereas forgiveness diffuses the problem before it can.

      I think you're half right there. Once in a high school art class, I was drawing something and this jackass sitting across the table kept spinning his book, shoving it as close as possible to my paper, closer and closer each time, just to get a reaction from me. Eventually I grabbed the book and shoved it off the table, but he just continued with another book.

      So I grabbed the book and threw it at his head. That r

      • Re:What this might mean (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:58PM (#10096694) Homepage Journal
        Forgiveness is no good. But neither is revenge. It's like this. The kid spinning the book was trying to bother you. His happiness relied upon your misery.

        You put up with his actions for a few minutes. That is what we call tolerance. Something is bothering you, but you don't do anything about it, you tolerate it. This doesn't work because even though you don't put out a reaction two other things happen. You are still unhappy, and the other person still gains joy. Also you bottle up whatever you would have let out.

        Forgiveness is when someone does something and you say, even though you bothered me, that's ok. Instead of doing nothing you respond to the annoyance with a positive. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. Usually its an acknowledgement of your displeasure and the annoying guy still has fun. And now that you are marked as a source of fun, you will be a future target.

        The real way to avoid tolerance, forgiveness and revenge is apathy. So, he's spinning his book. WHo cares? So he ruins your drawing, who cares? Let it happen and carry on. It's not enough to just carry on though, you have to legitimately not care. People can sense it if you are getting frustrated and then you've lost. I legitimately don't care what other people think about me or what other people do. It's fantastic. Because of this I say and do whatever I want and most consequences evaporate. This doesn't necessarily mean I do evil things. Whatever I want usually means trying to help people and do good. But I don't let the actions or opinions of others guide my decisions or actions.

        If this guy did to me what he did to you he would have a very tough time. First when he couldn't get a reaction he would try harder. Now he's not having fun because he's putting in more effort and not getting a return out of it. Two things can happen. Either he will give up because its too much effort, or he will hit me first. If he gives up, I win. If he hits first, it's all over. I get up and send him to the hospital. I never hit first, ever. I'm almost pacifist in that way. But if I get hit, nukes come out. And demonstrating this behavior tends to make it so that people don't bother you so much anymore. Both because of fear and lack of fun.
    • Which might as well lead to a perfect society, a utopia, whatever. Ever read "The Giver"? Yeah. Wanting revenge is natural? Go for it. Just don't seriously hurt people in the process.

    • Re:What this might mean (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dhilvert ( 608753 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:24PM (#10096489) Homepage

      '[I]f we want to be civilized humans, we have to go against these basic, animalistic instincts.'

      'Is anyone else here thinking "Prisoner's dilemma"?'

      In the iterated prisoner's dilemma [wikipedia.org], the potential for revenge is an incentive to cooperate. In light of this, your assumption -- that revenge is inherently inimical to civilization -- does not obviously hold.

      • "your assumption -- that revenge is inherently inimical to civilization -- does not obviously hold."

        Correct. Criminal punishment is a form of revenge. Once a crime hs been committed, it can't be uncommitted; the damage is done, and no form of punishment or retribution or revenge will undo it. So why do we fine, incarcerate, or execute criminals?

        Revenge -- righteous, justified revenge by the will of the people -- does have its place in society, because it has a deterrent effect on future crime. On the

    • South africa (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:43PM (#10096566) Journal
      After the apartheid regime crumbled there was need to settle things. It would have been very easy for the ANC to exact revenge on the whites. Yet Nelson Mandella choose not to. Instead a very lengthy make up process was started in wich people talked to each other. Prison guard to prisoner. Rioter to victim.

      South africa had seen a very bitter and long conflict not just between white and black but between whites and whites. Brown and black. Black and black. Zulus where used by the white goverment as a way to keep the ANC down. People from india where put in a middle position. Jews were on the outside white but just as prosecuted.

      So why was there no revenge? Their sure was enough on all sides to be bitter about.

      Because all sides realized that revenge was not an option. Even the neo-nazis realized that either there was peace or they were going to get slaughtered.

      Peace was possible because no side wanted to risk war.

      An example to the world that we can rise above ourselves. And sadly one that is almost impossible to duplicate. Usually at least one side thinks that he will win the war. The person cutting you off doesn't consider that he will die horribly in an accident or that you will gun him down. The rapist does not consider he will go to jail. The troll does not consider that someone will look him up and punch his face in.

      South africa didn't take revenge because they were afraid of what revenge would do to them.

      So I disagree with out. I think revenge is very usefull. Most usefull when both sides fear the potential of revenge.

      The extreme side of the lack of fear of revenge are terrorist attacks. Al Quada could attack because they didn't fear anything america could do back. Or do you really think Osama Bin Laden gives a damn about the people on his side killed?

      On the other hand america can act like a real prick because it does not live in fear that someday the world will get revenge. Look at vietnam. America slaughtered yet lives free from ever having to face the consequences.

      Revenge is sweet but the fear of revenge keeps humans "civilized" where civilized translates as "from bashing each others head in".

      • Do you think it was fear that made Nelson Mandela handle the situation like he did? He could easily be murdered by some blacks who REALLY wanted revenge, just like he could have been executed or whatnot in many situations.

        Don't glorify fear. Fear makes people make BAD decisions. They tend to panic and lose perspective. Fear has nothing to do with this, although a little fear is always good for staying alive.

        It's about seeing how small we really are. What does one life matter, my life? I can go without a n

    • Re:What this might mean (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ramze ( 640788 )
      Like most instincts and emotions, it has its place, but should be controlled. It was likely the need for revenge that spawned the judicial system and set up a good reward/punishment system for our ancestors. Now that we have laws and systems to do the justice for us, we should supress our need for revenge when it urges us to do anything illegal or possibly harmful to ourselves or society in the long-term, but I'd say a little vengeance is healthy for all parties involved... it vents an emotion in one, an

    • if we want to be civilized humans, we have to go against these basic, animalistic instincts

      What the hell are you talking about ?!? Animals don't exert revenge, it's a purely human reaction. Aniimals just roll over and get eaten or manage to flee. Period.

      Lex Talionis was actually the first good law; it meant you couldn't exert more revenge onto someone than they had done to you. You couldn't have someone killed for stealing a piece of bread: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If you put criminals awa

      • Re:What this might mean (Score:4, Interesting)

        by abiggerhammer ( 753022 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @03:06PM (#10097646)
        Animals don't exert revenge

        Not so -- not so at all. Chimpanzees have been observed conducting raids on rival chimp troops, kidnapping the offspring of these rival groups and killing, frequently eating, their victims. The rival group will conduct a retributive raid, killing the offspring of the original group, and so on and so forth.

        While googling around, I also found this article [dirtdoctor.com] about bluejays exacting revenge on a dog.

        Finally, in a somewhat more embarrassing anecdote: My ex-husband had a cat who sometimes seemed to take his anger into her own hands (paws?). Not too long before I moved out, we'd been fighting almost constantly, and one night I woke up in bed to discover the sheets wet and stinky and the cat placidly walking away. It had jumped up on the bed and peed on me.

        I have no idea what it was thinking, but it certainly didn't seem random.

  • Social Behavior can be Evolved (Score:5, Interesting)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:03PM (#10096356)
    Many animals display social behavior - from ants and termites to blue jays, llamas, dolphins, monkeys, and people. Is it really so surprising that these organisms (including people) might have a built-in, evolved accounting system for social relationships -- if A cheats me, it feels good the cheat A back. The basic tit-for-tat strategy is very well known in iterated game theory so its no surprise that it might be hardwired into social organisms.
    • you forgot wolves
      Don't you think humans form packs just to go out there to beat the crap out of that other pack of humans?
      All there is to that "social" behavior...
      And NO, to me humans don't look at all like ants, bees or termites. The little guys have a collective purpose. Do we?

  • Another link: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dazilla ( 647166 )
    Here's [www.cbc.ca] a link to the same article from CBC. I have to say, this seems to be one of those things we don't need to be TOLD are true. Everyone knows that getting revenge feels good (temporarily anyways).

  • It makes sense really. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Freston Youseff ( 628628 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:04PM (#10096364) Homepage Journal
    You get a pleasure rush as a result of extreme pain. It makes sense that you'd get a pleasure rush in the same fashion by taking revenge, an emotional analogue to endorphines if you really think hard enough about it.

  • Damn. That's some revenge (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:05PM (#10096369)
    A woman finds out that her husband is cheating on her while stationed in Saudi Arabia. So she sends him a very special care package. He is very excited to get a package from his wife back home. He finds that it contains a batch of home made cookies and a VHS tape of his favorite TV shows.

    He invites a couple of his buddies over and they're all sitting around having a great time eating the cookies and watching some episodes of South Park.

    Right in the middle of one episode the tape cuts to a home video of his wife on her knees giving his best friend oral sex.

    After a few seconds, he does his business in her mouth and she turns and spits the load right into the mixing bowl of cookie dough. She then looks at the camera and says, "By the way, I want a divorce."
  • Someday, I hope that Larry Ellison has the sweet taste of victory over Gates. Although, he did get too feel that "pleasure center" of his brain tweaked once in the late 90's when Oracle's stock price [groupshares.com] overtook that of MSFT.

  • Well now... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rii ( 777315 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:07PM (#10096384)
    Now we know why every movie villain takes two minutes two tell the protagonist how he is going to finish him off, and proceed to take over the world. ...even though it usually leads to their destructiong. You're wired to feel good about doing it. And here I thought that was -bad- writing.

  • FPS (Score:1, Informative)

    by Disc2 ( 720412 )
    anyone who's ever played a first person shooter could tell you this. There's nothing sweeter (and more selfish) than following around someone who's just foiled your most intricate stealthy plan, killing them again and again as they spawn, to the detriment of your team.

  • There is a little George Costanza in all of us (Score:5, Funny)

    by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:10PM (#10096403)
    JERRY: What is the point of all this?
    GEORGE: Revenge.
    JERRY: Oh, the best revenge is living well.
    GEORGE: There's no chance of that.

  • Not only revenge (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Metteyya ( 790458 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:12PM (#10096417)
    One of (American or British, can't remember) soldiers that fought in WWII said in one interview "Yes. I was killing. And I enjoyed that. And I feel ashamed.". It was first and last interview, he refused to give any after that.

    Many things can give pleasure. Take a look at computer games, their aim (let's say DOOM3) and realize the fact, that this - not "winning" the whole game itself (as it's impossible in most multiplayer games) - is pleasant.

    Killing, destroying, burning, making money in not-always-legal ways, ruining other people. Yes, that can give pleasure. Thanks to computer games everyone can do these things without harming anyone.

  • Reciprocity Promotes Cooperation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AtlanticCarbon ( 760109 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:14PM (#10096425)
    I remember reading an interesting game-theory book (Robert Axelrod) that stated, basically, that reciprocity promotes cooperation. In other words, tit-for-tat is a good strategy.

    After I read the book in college, I actually employed the strategy in everyday life. My experience also suggests tit-for-tat works. One guy did a bad deed; and I responded in kind. It did feel very satisfying to get revenge-- like an intrinsic form of justice. He didn't do it again.

    As long as you respond proportionally third parties don't look down on you and you don't have to worry about the same person screwing with you again because they learn the lesson of reciprocity.

    ONE CAVEAT: Don't use tit-for-tat on crazy / unstable people. They're liable to respond again disproportionately. There the strategy doesn't work so well.

    That's my experience.
    • Interesting you mention that. I employ your strategy above, only use a simple multiplier. Whatever someone does, they get it back at least three times worse. Dispropotionate responses also discourage others from going down that road.

      Thank god I'm fucking crazy.
    • You must be referring to the iterated prisoner's dilemma competition held between computer programs by Axelrod in 1980. People submitted programs with all kinds of different complex algorithms. The winner was a four-line program named Tit for Tat that cooperated on the first move, and simply replayed its opponent's last move in subsequent rounds.

  • Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Merovign ( 557032 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:16PM (#10096435)
    Despite thoughtless moralizing (or ethicizing), think about this for a moment.

    Revenge is a deterrent factor. If you fear revenge, you either have to be less of a bastard or a total bastard. It raises the bar for bad behavior.

    It's far from a perfect control on bad behavior (a certain percentage of people will interpret the rule as "try to ensure the victim cannot get revenge"), and perspectives are often skewed on who started what, but there is a form of control here that at least works sometimes.

    This pleasure response is there for a reason. Revenge works. Sometimes.

    Revenge is only unethical to the extent that the target gets more that it deserves (or you get the wrong target, or you deserved what you got in the first place).

    Now, being quite imperfect, we get the "system" screwed up a lot. Which is why a lot of people want to avoid the principle at all.

    But like the "violence never works" crowd, as long as they insist on platitudes that are demonstrably untrue (and they deny basic physiological/psychological principles), they will have a big fight on their hands.

    On the other hand, the better you understand your behavior, its causes and results, the more control you can have over it.
    • But like the "violence never works" crowd, as long as they insist on platitudes that are demonstrably untrue (and they deny basic physiological/psychological principles), they will have a big fight on their hands.

      Please give examples. You may be right, but giving this statement as fact without providing any concrete examples to show its factual correctness (or mentioning what these basic physiological/psychological principles or demonstrably true facts are) does not help in furthering your argument. "Vi

      • >"Violence never works" may be a clear fallacy to you, but it probably isn't to a lot of people, including myself. I would love to hear the argument against it.

        It worked for Saddam Hussein as a way of getting power.

        It worked for Saddam Hussein as a way of keeping power.

        It worked for the US as a way of removing Saddam Hussein from power, though to be sure it failed spectacularly at all the other stated goals.

        If violence doesn't work, why do we have police equipped with pepper spray, batons and even fi

      • Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Merovign ( 557032 )
        So you're saying that the violent never succeed? There was no Roman empire built on conquest? China didn't use force to take over Tibet? Muggers never profit from their actions? All murderers are caught and punished? All forced injustive fails? There are no dictators, no strongmen, no thugs?

        And what about self-defense? No one has ever protected themselves, their family, their country using force?

        This is a strange world you live in, what is it called?

        I don't mean to mock, I just find it odd that there is

  • Depends on pecking order (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <slashdotbin@hotmail.com> on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:18PM (#10096452) Homepage Journal
    Evolution has many feedback mechanisms, some reinforcing what is good for the society (species) and some that are good for the individual. I would imagine this has less to do with what is good for society, but the individual. Being alpha means sub alpha males and sub alpha females must know there are repercussions for crossing the boss, whether the slight is just or not. Being in the alpha position means more offspring. One could speculate and study whether people in authority (more likely to be alpha) are more likely to engage in revenge for revenge's sake. Revenge may seem counter productive, but the knowledge that high pecking order individuals will indulge in it is good for those at the top, and perhaps even insures some sort of social order for those below.

    Sadly evolution has probably coded that revenge is sweet, as long as it is somebody lower in the pecking order.

    • Re:Depends on pecking order (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Reziac ( 43301 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @03:14PM (#10097707) Homepage Journal
      [puts on professional dog trainer hat]

      In dogs, where the individual dog ranks in the pack's social hierarchy is inherited, not made.

      An alpha NEVER has to enforce its position -- the alpha (of which there may be several in a pack) is the natural leader, and all the beta and "nobody" dogs *avoid* giving offense. The alpha will graciously allow other dogs to take its toys or food (unless it REALLY wants them, in which case it need merely "ask") and will generally not act dominant at all -- but no beta EVER challenges a true alpha. Alphas do not fight with other alphas, either. Alphas train easily but are go-getters, so can overwhelm the inexperienced.

      Betas (which come in several gradients, from top-rung outright aggressive types to bottom-rung sneak-fighters) DO fight among themselves, but the winner is *always* the dog that was socially higher to begin with, and occasionally the loser is killed since *everyone* will gang up on any dog that goes down (tho fights to the death happen much more often with females than with males). An alpha WILL participate once the loser goes down, but will not fight with anyone else. Betas are much like a human with "short man's complex" or "a chip on their shoulder", and are often difficult to train since their first thought is usually "you can't make me". Low-end betas have a relatively high incidence of juvenile-onset psychosis.

      (Betas are a PITA in a kennel, which is why I've bred most of the "beta crap" out of my own dogs :)

      Nobodies don't "count" in the social order, and are ignored by alphas and by most betas, tho a few low-end betas will pick on nobodies. They train easily for anyone, as they are purely followers and never "argue". A nobody is essentially an alpha without the go-gettum (initiative).

      There are pack behaviour thresholds at 5-6, 12-15, and around 25, where some behaviours change. Once you get more than ~25 dogs that can all *see* one another (it does not matter if they are together, separated, or how much personal space each one has, only if they can SEE the others), there is some social breakdown and you get more aggression than from the same dogs in smaller pack units.

      Now, look around at the human race, and you'll see pretty much the same social sets: leaders with no need to bully to get their way (alphas), average joes who sometimes feel a need to show off how tough they are (high and middling betas), varying degrees of misfits (low-end betas), and people who just live their lives and keep their heads down (nobodies), with aggressive tendencies sometimes exacerbated by population pressures.

      "He was a leader because he did not look back to see who was following him." -- from Mr.Roberts

  • That's why we do it. We are basically unthinking animals with a thinnest gloss of culture. But we still have brains that require very little thinking, and don't depend on language and culture. And all this 'altruistic' punishment goes out the window if the enforcing individual gets the same response from the dopamine system as a cocaine hit. There is nothing altruistic about, merely another selfish response coming from the distant past through the most primitive parts of our brains.

  • theory: the joy of revenge (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hermi ( 809034 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:35PM (#10096529)
    I think if you revenge for something, you actually want to show your victim that you can "also do that", and the victim is not superior to you, and can push you around.
    so revenge is an act who increasess self-esteem which gives satisfaction (this is clear, I think).

    therefore it's not an instinctive thing, rather a "point-of-view"-thing which comes out of rationality.
    I myself think, I am superior if I stay with my ethics and do not hurt people in revenge. That doesen't mean I wouldn't hurt people at all, but not in revenge.
    This gives me satisfaction, too.
  • Are we going to learn next week that pain's in the brain, and not a learned behavior?

    Will this new light cause us to rethink our ideas about "nature" v. "nurture"?

  • Not True (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PhraudulentOne ( 217867 )
    For some (most), this article rings true, but for others, I'm sure they are wriggling in their seats saying "No it doesn't!." Revenge can only feel good if your acting on your ego-centric tendencies - congrats, your acting from a subhuman level - fooling yourself into thinking that what your doing is right even though you know that what your doing is just as wrong, if not more so. If you truly love someone and they do something wrong or negative towards you (only in your opinion - not necessarily in thei
    • Revenge can only feel good if your acting on your ego-centric tendencies

      Not at all. I enjoy watching "World's Wildest Police Chases" and "Cops" on TV because the crooks generally get what's coming to them. It's a form of revenge, only in this case through the proxy of the long arm of the law. This has nothing to do with my personal egocentricity overcoming the boundaries of right and wrong - in fact, it stands solidly on the side of right in getting revenge on those who obviously have done something wr
  • Okay, so science has finally proven that (or perhaps more accurately "how") Man is inherently corrupt. I guess all those centuries of religious rhetoric weren't entirely wrong. Or, more specifically, for those who believe that Man can be made good with the right environment, etc. how do we respond?

  • Revenge vs Justice, Pleasure vs Happiness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linuxhansl ( 764171 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @01:21PM (#10096884)
    Revenge is like many other desires: If we follow them blindly they lead to short term pleasure but longterm lead to unhappiness as we never learned how to sustain the pleasures (which some claim is in fact not possible).

    It's too bad that in many western societies Justice is almost equivalent to Revenge.

    This may be a little offtopic...

    Justice should never appeal to the "lower" human feeling, but rather be designed to prevent crime from happending in the first place. Revenge has no place in Justice as it does nothing to "undo" the crime after it happened.

    Crimes are prevented by:

    1. Eliminating the reason (for example poverty and social inequalities).
    2. Education (for example learn to deal with jealousy, envy, and other desires and feelings in a non-violent way)
    3. Deterrance (if you commit a crime, face the consequences).
    4. Reparation (not preventing anything, but necessary to repair the damage caused - this is not revenge!)
    This is a big difference, although in practise the differences are subtle; i.e. are you locking somebody up because of revenge or deterrance?

    When somebody is punished for a crime, there should be no pleasure and no feeling of revenge or even accomblishment! Rather there should be the urge to understand why the crime happened and the understanding that this is necessary to deter the next.

    • Not that anyone cares, since this is Slashdot, but it might interest some as our legal system is based on Judao-Christian values.

      Revenge in the Christian religion is right out, in all circumstances. In no case should an individual take revenge in the case of being wronged. The reason is two-fold: Christians should forgive, just as they have been forgiven in Christ's atoning sacrifice, and revenge is God's prerogative. All harms done against other people are ultimately seen as attacks on God.

      In this l

  • Revenge (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ganhawk ( 703420 )
    As Gandhi said

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
  • The greatest pleasure is to defeat one's enemy

    -Genghis Khan (greatest conquerer)

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Close