Jesse Bering
Image:
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
When I first moved to the United Kingdom a few years ago and began house-hunting, I realized that the typical décor inside homes here is slightly different from what you would expect to find in the average American household. Based on the overabundance of shag carpets generously speckled with flicks of vomit-colored hues, the redundant stylistic motifs of concentric circles and the cloying use of linoleum flooring, it would appear the seventies never really left this part of the world. My partner and I found ourselves on more than one occasion turning to each other upon entering one of these homes and whispering with slightly curled upper lips, “disgusting.”
Now this isn’t the place to discuss British aesthetics and I imagine many Europeans would find certain American decorative styles equally vulgar or at least pretentious, but I would like to turn your attention to our use of the word “disgusting” in this context. One of the more interesting sideline debates in psychological science today concerns whether the core emotion of disgust, which involves an aversion to physical contaminants such as bodily waste products, has extended emotionally into other non-contagion domains. For example, my partner, Juan, uses the expression “that’s disgusting” rather frequently—he uses it to describe hairstyles he dislikes, clothes he abhors and architecture he finds offensive. And many people use similar expressions to describe other people or behaviors that violate some social norm.
Quick—what’s the first word that comes to your mind when you conjure up a child molester? If it’s not “disgusting,” it’s probably something similar like “vile,” “repulsive,” “gross” or “nasty.” Some scholars, such as psychologist Paul Bloom from Yale University, believe that our use of these terms in such non-contaminative contexts is only metaphorical for our anger or dislike. That is to say, Bloom and others reason that we don’t really feel nauseated when we use such words in the social domain—not like we do when we come into contact with someone else’s feces or, in my case, when I nearly step on vomit courtesy of a Queen’s undergraduate student who’d imbibed too much Guinness the evening prior. Rather, Bloom believes that these affectively charged terms invoke the element of disgust in the social domain because they transmit our feelings about things we strongly dislike.
One researcher who believes this type of language goes beyond mere metaphor is Bruce Hood, a psychologist at the University of Bristol. In his soon-to-be-released book SuperSense, Hood argues that human beings are prone to reasoning as though other people have a hidden essence that can be transmitted through physical contact
And in a recent issue of the journal Emotion, psychologists Andrew Jones and Julie Fitness from Macquarie University provide some of the first evidence that, at least when it comes to our thinking about social deviants such as sex offenders, thieves and other criminals, we genuinely feel as though these transgressors are a potential source of physical contamination. In fact, this new work on moral disgust builds on a body of theoretical ideas and other research findings suggesting that human beings reason as though social deviants have the equivalent of cooties. The first scholarly statement I’m aware of that mentions this phenomenon was made by the famous sociologist Erving Goffman in his 1963 book Stigma, in which he noted that people wanted on criminal warrants were once referred to as “having smallpox” and their criminal disease was said to be catching; merely being seen with them could lead to arrest on suspicion.
See what we're tweeting about
16 Comments
Add CommentThanks, I'm sure everyone wanted to know how YOU feel about straight sex.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article. Especially the point about morality possibly following reaction versus reaction following morality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis brings to mind (incorrectly) a research article I read in which subject's brains were scanned with an MRI while making faces. They were then asked to remain neutral faced while observing images of faces making an expression. The MRI showed the same areas of the brain were "lit up" whether the expression was made or observed.
I think the conclusion was that people emotively experience (to some degree) what they observe. See smile, feel smile.
It seemed obvious to me then that if a man were to observe two men kissing, then the man would emotively experience kissing another man. I bet people who are less able to abstract themselves from their observations (adolescents) the response would be even more personal. The emotive response could also be more visceral for people lacking experience in the act being observed, either personally or through frequent observation of others.
But is this acclimation, or is it more oppurtunity to distinguish between others and self?
So if someone looses the visceral feeling of disgust when observing a behavior - are they changing their opinion, becoming acclimated, or no longer emotively experiencing the other persons behavior? Same thing with watching violence and sex on TV?
I would actually be interested to know the typical homosexual reaction to observations of heterosexual acts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I'm not going to take a survey.
I also wondered how the "disgust" reaction plays out accross different cultures - especially eastern-asian cultures.
expell the transgressors , lol. I would be far more comfortable wearing "rapists socks" than your jocks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think some of the logic in this article is off. It is implied that it's better to reason 1st and have a reaction 2nd. Why not have an internal aversion 1st, then a statement of belief 2nd?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou assume that the "disgust response" is inferior to reason, but one can incorrectly reason, or reason with incorrect premises and come to an incorrect conclusion. (Please note that I am a proponent of reason being taught in every school.) However, I think both reason and a disgust response may go hand in hand.
You write:
"Much of this work suggests it is the gut-level feeling of disgust that leads homophobes to reason that the behavior is immoral, not the other way around. In other words, that which disgusts me must be wrong rather than it is wrong, therefore I should be disgusted. "
First, I think homophobic is an improper, political word when you say homophobes & reason that the behavior is immoral. One may not want spiders in the house but that is different from arachnophobia. You should use words that states what you mean more clearly. "Disapproval of gays" is what is mentioned in the linked report.
Secondly, although "an intuitive disapproval of gays" exists, it doesn't mean that disapproval of homosexual attitudes stem solely from inner disgust or that there aren't other logical reasons in addition to repugnance. Logical reasons may even be the main reason, and its possible (though not plausible) that disgust isnt even a factor in some persons disapproval of homosexuals.
Thirdly, one can turn off or mute his/her disgust slowly like one can become desensitized to violence, or like one can desensitize his or her conscience. It doesn't mean it's right; it just means it can be done.
Research exploring the relationship between disgust, repugnance, and bad behavior is interesting, but what you say the research suggests, is incorrect. More research needs to be done to determine the exact nature of the relationship and its role in the moral, psychological, and biological aspects of our life experiences.
In your conclusion you completely overshadow the main topic and insert homosexuality as the dominating theme. Although it is related because a lot of people find homosexuality disgusting, and it could have had a paragraph or two in relation to this topic, but its not what this article is about (is it?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found the article interesting, a topic I've followed on and off for a while. What worries me though, is that we might be missing other factors at work. For example, the 'Macbeth effect' - is it a universal human trait, or is it a cultural trait restricted or predominant in 'Western culture'?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think emotions are a particularly interesting field, but they also require a bit of intercultural comparison. For example, the paedophile may induce disgust today, but would not have in ancient Greece. Further, do stigmatized individuals induce the same emotions everywhere, and do all stigmatized individuals induce the same emotion?
Any answers on this front?
Salute,
L.
Part of the densitivity of our times. We have become very desenistized to the consqueces of our action. I have seen behaviours that would be total not tolerated in my parents time. We all have monents in our lives that make us unclean. No one is excepted in this regard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if you feel unlean you don't have to use soap , tide , ajax, arm & hammer to get clean. If your soul is in a unclean condition then what do you do? For me as a christian we turn to jesus and have him pray to clean up my act. I would guess the whole congration is in effect in the shower room when we are having communion an get our moral life cleaned up. In some ways yes. However what is clean and what is unclean even for a belever is subjective. I feel you study is correct. It boils down to this "what is one man's meat is anothers poision". We all carry this sin to judge anothers behavior as clean or unclean. When in effect all who believe have been made clean.
I also wish to add a example which is the movie "Ace Ventura pet detective" to illustraite my case as well as the authors point being made here but to elaborate on his points and to change the true meaning of what he is saying as right, good and clean. In the movie our hero discovers a pet that is being held hostage by a former rouge cope that had a sex change from male to female.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the movie our hero Ace ventura has a relationship with the rouge former cop who is masquerading as a female. When he finds out we hear the music from the movie "The Crying Game". He tries to clean him self up and fails . He even resorts to a toilet plunger on his mouth to clean him self up. This is what I see with many people outside of Christ (a few sad souls in Christ) despartely trying to clean themselves up and failing. It just won't work if you do it your self . Cleaning your self starts with your own heart. . No matter how bad you are or what you did or how far gone you are repentence is close. It doesn't mean brainwashing loosing your self or agreeing wit hthe crowd but it means understanding your own moral condition & moral failings. That is why the saying "Cleanlyness is next to godlyness". Some folks need to get clean.
Everything was going along fine until you undercut your own credibility by personalizing your article to the extent of telling us what you think of straight sex. By doing so, you tweaked your entire argument into an arrow shooting directly toward your need to make that final statement. In doing so, you also upheld the stereotype that gays sexualize everything. Even disgust.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything was going along fine until you undercut your own credibility by personalizing your article to the extent of telling us what you think of straight sex. By doing so, you tweaked your entire argument into an arrow shooting directly toward your need to make that final statement. In doing so, you also upheld the stereotype that gays sexualize everything. Even disgust.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is fascinating to me that 8 of the so far 11 comments hone in immediately on the author's discussion of homosexuality and disgust. If I were this author and read these comments I would have to say, "I rest my case." The final two paragraphs of the article clearly hit a nerve for those who are apparently disgusted by homosexuality. There are many studies and books in print about disgust including those of Rozin (mentioned here), Susan Miller, William Miller, Winfried Menninghaus, Martha Nussbaum and more. Their work, so far as I can tell, corroborates the arguments made by this author. I believe that so much of the hideous violence that has been committed against homosexual people (Matthew Sheppard comes to mind) can be linked to this socially conditioned disgust mechanism. Thanks for the insightful and accessible article. I am "disgusted" by much of the response.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think women do as well. I think we all carry a moral compass that tells us what is right and what is not. However I do a small minority telling a larger group as what is correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA example is the Japanese film Rasomon showed the first kiss between a man and a women . This was shocking to the Japanese auidences in 1951. At that time such matters were done behind closed doors. It goes to the same for American audiences what is scocking and unclean differs for each persons moral compass.
However a a Christan man my compass hopefully lines up more to what is in the Bible.
I remember seeing something like this on the Discovery channel. They were following wild horses. One of the head males killed a foal, and the rest of the herd snubbed him somehow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with lrejec -- this would be an excellent way of comparing social values across cultures. Are there any criminals' clothes that we universally won't wear?
Right wing authoritarianism? And this is a scientific study? Someone needs to take Objectivity 101 again.
I don't understand the emotionalism over the closing comments... they were obviously meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
wfitz1964... do you even realize your responses aren't on-topic? Do you do this a lot?
I think wfitz1964 has posted on the issue of desensitization. However he is posting in a running narrative which continues from his earlier posts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto wfitz1964 ... 1 long narrative in 5 sections comes off disjointed when each section is interspaced with other people's comments. It discounts whatever you're saying. Next time, please define your topic clearly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this