Scientists have provided objective evidence to back suspicions that men who are over-confident and narcissistic are the likeliest to start wars -- but also are the likeliest to lose.
US researchers recruited 200 men and women in an unusual experiment aimed at exploring whether a bias towards optimism may drive a leader to start a war.The volunteers were asked to play a one-on-one computer game.
Each played the role of the head of a fictitious country that is in conflict with a neighbour over a vast field of diamonds on a disputed border. . .
Individuals who launched unprovoked attacks were more than five times likelier to be a male than female.
And they were big on self-confidence, too. On average, a warmonger ranked himself 60 out of the 200 players, whereas those who tried to avoid war ranked themselves more humbly, at 75 on average.
Contrary to popular belief, though, testosterone played no part in whether a player decided for war or for peace. The players gave a saliva test before the game, and these showed there was no significant difference in male hormone levels between warmongers and peaceniks.
On the other hand, there was a clear psychological characteristic among the warmongers. After the game, they were given a personality assessment, which found high levels of narcissism among the men -- but not among the women.
The researchers, led by Dominic Johnson of Princeton University in New Jersey, publish the study in the latest issue of Proceedings of the Royal Society, a journal of Britain's de-facto academy of science.
A study like this is prime material for easy jokes. But it's also sobering, especially when you consider, first, that narcissism and self-confidence are two traits that drive individuals to become leaders who have the power to start wars, and second, that wars in the Nano Era could easily result in worldwide devastation, global enslavement, or both.
Ugh. Anybody got an easy answer for this one?
Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog
Anyone ever read Sheri Tepper's "The Gate to Women's Country"?
Posted by: AndrewS | June 30, 2006 at 01:56 PM
The solution to this problem is really quite simple...
Anyone seeking a position of power should be scrutinized using state-of-the-art technologies; such as:
*Polygraph platforms that monitor minute (unconscious)facial movements, pupil responce, voice-stress, rectal tension, as well as the galvanic skin responce, heart rate, etc..
*Genetic profiling to determine the presents of any psychopathological predispositions.
Follow these up with the standard FBI background check and your in business. ;)
Simple solution, impossible to implement. So...
Perhaps we should vote for the issues we would like to see addressed instead of voting for people who may or may not have our best interests in mind.
Posted by: James Green | June 30, 2006 at 07:59 PM
AndrewS: Yes, it's one of my favorites--read it quite a few times. Also Raising the Stones. Some of Tepper's are too preachy, but when she's good, she's really good. I also like Octavia Butler (almost everything) and Samuel R. Delany (especially Triton and Stars In My Pocket). All three authors do very rich explorations of alien or unfamiliar societies.
James: I sometimes think that the best solution is to apply neurotech to a group of volunteers to make them 1) effective; 2) cooperative; 3) trustworthy; 4) humanitarian. Create a structure for the group, based on confidence that everyone involved has these attributes. I'd expect this group to be extremely "fit" and to make the world a much better and safer place.
How to get people to volunteer? Just add 5) thin to the mix. :-) Seriously, I wouldn't expect everyone to volunteer, and I hope that wouldn't be necessary. Consider how much effect e.g. the Quakers had on the way we do business; they introduced fixed pricing for goods, and it's now standard for most commercial transactions. A good idea, once invented and incubated, can spread.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Phoenix, CRN | June 30, 2006 at 10:43 PM
Great comments. For once, full agreement on everything.
Sadly, the study under consideration, like so MANY psychological studies, is really not very good science. Far too much is being read into noise. Tests for "narcissism" are themselves weak in predictive power and were already known to show a gender correlation. The difference between self-ranking at 70th percentile and 62nd percentile is almost surely WAY below statistical significance. Finally, we can calmly and fairly call anyone who denies that men are more aggressive and warlike than women an idiot, and could do so with no "scientific" evidence even if a silly video-game "experiment" like this one showed the opposite. Sure, it's possible that you could be wrong if you did so, after all, you wouldn't have any evidence to back your case, but I will also calmly ab-hominum anyone who claims that leather is stronger than steel or that rap improves self-discipline without bothering to investigate. If they show very strong evidence, I will of course back down, but one does not start with a 50% prior for every proposition and keep priors at 50% until you have seen a relevant scientific paper.
Posted by: michael vassar | July 01, 2006 at 05:06 AM
@ chris: That's a great idea Chris. It's that type of thinking that will see us through the mess we're in now. I'd love to see your idea (and mine for that matter.) fleshed-out. Good work!
And let's not forget that genetic enhancements for intelligence, memory, etc., are just around the corner - only 15-20 years out now! (Incidentally, I don't think we'll achieve Molecular Manufacturing 'till we're gentically modified either. maybe I'm wrong.)
@Michael: This study doesn't convince me either. Some of the most vicious people I've ever known have been women! And what about Hillary Clinton? The way she talks she would gladly turn Iran into a sheet of glass just to get elected!
Posted by: James Green | July 01, 2006 at 06:54 AM