Robbers Cave Experiment: Unmasking the Roots of Tribal Conflicts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 чер 2024
- In the summer of 1954, a school bus with a group of 12-year old boys arrived at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. The boys thought they were going camping. Their parents at home believed the sponsored trip had something to do with leadership. None of them knew that they were actually part of a controversial experiment on realistic conflict resolution.
SUPPORT us to make more videos!
/ sprouts 🐦:
DOWNLOAD video without ads and background music 🤫:
sproutsschools.com/video-less...
SIGN UP to our mailing list and never miss a new video from us 🔔:
eepurl.com/dNU4BQ
SOURCES and teaching resources 🎓:
sproutsschools.com/realistic-...
VISIT our website 🌐:
www.sproutsschools.com
CONTRIBUTE by upvoting your favorite topic or suggesting new ones :
sprouts.featureupvote.com/
ORIGINAL TITLE
Realistic Conflict Theory: The Psychology of War and Peace
THANKS to our patrons
This video was made with the support of our Patrons: Alex Rodriguez, Andrea Basillio Rava, Angela, ArkiTechy, Artur, azad bel, Badrah, Cedric.Wang, Daniele Diniz, David Markham, Delandric Webb, Digital INnov8ors, Dr. Matthias Müller-Mellin, Duane Bemister, Eva Marie Koblin, Fatenah G Issa, Floris Devreese, Frari63, Gerry Labelle, Ginger, Harmoniac Design, ICH KANN DEUTSCH UND ES WAR EINFACH!, Jana Heinze, Jannes Kroon, Jeffrey Cassianna, Joanne Doyle, John Burghardt, Jonathan Schwarz, Jorge Luis Mejia Velazquez, Khadijah Sellers, Leonel, Linus Linderoth, Liskaya, Marcel, María, martin, Mathis Nu, Mezes.Macko, Michael Paradis, Mindozone, Natalie O’Brien, Nicki, Okan Elibol, Oweeda Newton, Peter Bishop, Raymond Fujioka, Roel Vermeulen, Scott Gregory, scripz, Sebastian Huaytan Meder, Si, Stefan Gros, Stephen Clark, Stuart Bishop, Susan Schuster, Takashi HIROSE, Tristan Scifo, Victor Paweletz, Yvonne Clapham, Zlatko Minev and all the others.Thank you! To join them visit www.patreon.com/sprouts
COLLABORATORS
Script: Jonas Koblin
Artist: Pascal Gaggelli
Voice: Matt Abbott
Coloring: Nalin
Editing: Peera Lertsukittipongsa
Sound Design: Miguel Ojeda
Fact-checking: Ludovico Saint Amour Di Chanaz
Production: Selina Bador
SOUNDTRACKS
Toys Are Alive - Studio Le Bus
My Banjo - RimskyMusic
Terror Avenue - Jace Pierce
Midnight Mischief - Jonathan Boyle
DIG DEEPER with these top videos, games and resources:
Read about Lutfy Diab, who repeated the experiment with 18 boys from Beirut. The 'Blue Ghost' and 'Red Genies' groups each contained 5 Christians and 4 Muslims. Fighting soon broke out, not Christian vs Muslim but Blue vs Red.
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...
Read about social judgment theory, a self-persuasion theory proposed by Carolyn Sherif, Muzafer Sherif, and Carl Hovland.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-...
Read more about realistic conflict theory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realist...
Watch original photography footage from the camp.
• The Robbers Cave Exper...
SOURCES
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reali...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzaf...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn...
www.simplypsychology.org/robb...
www.age-of-the-sage.org/psych...
CLASSROOM ACTIVITY
To view suggested classroom activity for this topic, check out our website!
CHAPTER
00:00 Introduction
00:14 The Robbers cave experiment
01:01 In-group formation
01:46 Friction phase
02:32 Conflict resolution
03:29 Four findings
03:59 Realistic conflict theory
04:55 What do you think?
05:31 Patron credits
05:40 Ending
#sproutslearning #psychology #conflict
I remember reading some criticism about this experiment. The problem was that the kids' behavior was heavily influenced by the camp's supervisors. The kids weren't really interested in competing against each another and becoming hateful of the other group, this only happened because the supervisors forced them to do it (like the example of throwing buckets of mud in the video - it wasn't the kids' idea). In the end you could also argue that to create some conflict you just need a little group of hecklers (camp supervisors) to stir things up.
And of course there is the problem of using kids' behavior to explain adults' behavior.
Add to it they tried the experiment twice before.
In their second attempt the kids found microphones all over the camp and a notebook. This made both camps turn against the counselors. This in turn cancelled the second experiment.
Add to it that "the Rattlers" got the name from an event when a counselor shot a snake. Along with a *lot* of Confirmation Bias. This study was not the best example for coverage.
I think Plainly Difficult did a better job of explaining and describing this study.
@@dmitryisakov8769 Disagree strongly. Kids learn from adults at any stage of their development. So the "childish" behavior of politicians has nothing to do with how children are, they instead influence children because children are easy influenced. They just mirror adults.
@Rabid Cheese Monkey lmao class struggle at summer camp.
Why do you think politicians and leaders are there for!?
I think an example to argue is Black Friday and during the Pandemic when we ran out of toilet paper. Some adults will become aggressive when they perceive scare resources. Mob mentality is implemented when a group bonds to receive a good or service.
So Lord of the Flies real life edition but adults manipulation...
you might be on to something ^^ .. kids to rule the world !
Is it a good book? I always wanted to read it,so i want to know if it is worth my time
@@kanaeroseweld2237 it's good but it does get dark
Sounds like a CIA experiment
@@kanaeroseweld2237y mother once gave it to me, thinking that I would like it...I told her "how could you possibly think that I would like a book that starts with children dying in a plane crush and ends with the survived kids killing each other???" She did NOT see that coming.
I honestly think it's a too simple experiment to explain why war exist. Those kids were actually the same. You can't build a whole culture in 5 days. A culture defines who we are, for better or worse.
Yes you are right, you cant build a whole culture in 5 days but you can plant an idea into their minds in just a seconds and that will be enough for that idea to last for decades
agreed. i was quite confused when i heard culture. based off of the provided images, the cultures were probably ways of shaving sticks. lol
I remember seeing a documentary in the 80's about the training center preparing business people to work overseas. They were split in to two "countries", and had design their countries, write law and policies and a constitution etc. when they where bought together often there would be conflicts, and even fights. This was done in one day, and these were adults, and I don't recall any scarce resources.
Even as a documentary, this helped shape my attitudes when traveling, and meeting cultures that were different from my own
Depends how you define resources. The ability to have one law given primacy over another can be perceived as power. The group's law that is accepted indicates power and prestige the other group does not obtain. The perceived scarcity of power can be a source of friction, conflict and open hostility. Resources in the context of Realistic Conflict Theory is very broad.
@@gumwallaby Thought provoking, Thanks
@@gumwallabyterestingly, different countries have different laws, that were formed historically. and even though some laws can be more just - like democratic freedoms, people from tyrannical states will still protect their legacy, as it is their's. the problems begin when they wish to use this legacy against other states.
@@gumwallaby I mean that you made a really good observation that the laws can be a source of social status and respect.✌🍀👍 still, I think that, first of all, laws have direct functions, and some laws are just more humane, and are better for the human beings.🌈🌞
I think it's a bit reductionistic to conclude that conversations don't work in conflict resolution. If anything, I think it just shows that those boys weren't equipped with the proper tools to educate, negotiate, and deescalate. There's a whole host of reasonable people who can be convinced to let go of a priory belief and adopt a new set of ideas that are much closer to the truth.
You have a point!
I wonder, looking at the us in particular, if the loud and boisterous fringes promote an idea of false scarcity in order to reduce reason and negotiation? I wonder if this has contributed to this fringe attaining votes from normal folks and thereby gaining power?
@@AbsurdCats Yup. That's what happens. What's even worse is that the silent majority may be on the left or right, but because they prioritize peace instead of justice they act and vote for conservatives who seek to maintain the status quo. People need to become radicalized. Radicalized to the point of promoting human rights, the heightened quality of life, higher education, access to health care and many more issues that come from the dominance of neoliberalism.
Also assumes teen boys act the same way as adults
@@kit888 Honestly that's a fair assumption. Just because you're old doesn't mean you're mature.
I was wondering, "Did the kids ever try to rebel against the adults? Or did the researchers not notice because it wasn't something they were looking for?"
The video left me with many open questions: To what degree did we see the behavior of children or what the counselors wanted to see? Did further experiments confirm or disprove parts of all of the conclusions? How did knowledge of human behavior change in time since the experiment? Please add some links to criticisms of the experiment and especially its findings.
This describes how sports leagues function pitting one county/state/city vs another
for limited placements or qualifying spots.
This channel is one of the reasons why I love psychology!
And the videos help me to understand more the subject.
Hey! Sprouts is happy to be a part of your learning journey :)
This reminds me of the Minecraft Civilization Experiment, where participants are residing in different region with different geographical benefits and drawbacks.
Cultures were formed, alliances made and trading flourished, while some resources are gained using weapons and arms. When leaders looks for peace, they were assassinated and warlords took over. Revolts were made, people were betrayed and in some cases, genocides committed on neutral factions.
Go look it up. It really says something about our society
I wouldn't say it says anything about our society. It's a block game, where actual pain and damages caused by genocides against neutral factions are zero. There's a huge difference between a real genocide where death has real, physical, permanent consequences and one where everyone is made of 5 rectangles and 1 cube in a fantasy video game with zombies, skeletons and magic.
It's like using a COD game as a basis for an experiment in human psychology.
So they did something to "prove" their own assumptions... while using a VERY heavy hand on the scales. Scarcity is a real thing, but you can't just brush over that whole race/religion thing as if it isn't part of the initial in-group aspect (being forced into a tribe for economic reasons, joining a tribe just to feel like one belongs to something greater, etc).
So pretty much people in power create division .
This channel help me to understand theory much easier.
You're so sweet :)
Yikes! The researchers conducting this experiment were way out of line! Why didn't they believe in informed consent? Besides that, fighting and dehydration are both dangerous situations. They were lucky if none of the boys had to be hospitalized.
A lot of social experiments were performed back then, that could never be done today.
Yes!
Thats how experiment works karen. If you tell people that you are planning an experiment, they will most likely find away to put on a mask and be on their best behavior which could lead to the failure of the experiment because 89% of the people's action and reaction will be nothing more than pretty lies
This explains perfectly why the powers-that-be keep people fighting amongst themselves. Just think how much we would get done if we cooperated and got along.
so simply well put yet so deep......
You could add scholarly criticisms to this theory also. It may take some more time, but it would be a better video.
Btw, I don't think adults are much different than children in having prejudices.
We all have biases, for sure.
Individually Children are harder to influence because they easily change their mind
Individuals are generally prone to share without limit, warlords rally groups for advantage over others
Spot on in my estimation. In the last 20 years, I've become an x-sports fan for pretty much the same reasons. It started with a strike in one sport and gradually eroded my enjoyment watching the others. I've been sport free for almost 10 years because of the ugliness of the fans.
I totally understand this topic with easy teaching from this video. 👍🏻
Those researchers sound like the government, turning the people against each other while making out like bandits.
There are so many flaws in the crafting and the process of the study... and I will not even mention the fallacies in the manner the experiment was conducted.
First, the study only works in western societies: the kids' cultural understanding of group behaviour and the norms they internalized (through media, education, interaction... socialization) heavily influenced how they understood themselves, the staff and the other group. Although similar structures of authority probably exist in other cultures, the way everyone behaved is clearly situated and cannot be transposed to other groups of 1) different ages 2) different social classes and 3) different cultures (which of course does not mean that it might not happen the same way in another culture, as was shown in Lebanon. It just suggests that groups who are not shaped by a realist understanding would not behave the same way. More to that below).
For example, the "gacaca" trials in Rwanda after the genocide can be seen as a different way of dealing with conflict, albeit being more focused on the consequences than on direct conflict-resolution.
Second, the psychologysts' "theory" is biaised by 1) their school of thought (realism) and 2) the society and culture in which they live (by which I mean that it does not come from a neutral standpoint). Realism as a theory, especially in IR, has been heavily critiqued for a lot of quite legitimate reasons which I have not the time nor the patience to develop here (for those who are interested, I recommend looking into constructivism and structuralism). In short: the theory is performative and leads exactly to that which it predicts. Realist presuppositions (inherent competition, anarchy, security-dilemma...) induce the issues they are modeling, by framing the actors' understanding of their relations. The structure structures our actions which in return enforce the structure.
The scheme they prepared for the experiment however follows the same steps as conflicts all across the world (even the Rwandan genocide for instance) and can thus be recognized as somewhat useful, since most actors' understanding of conflicts are structured by realist presuppositions. Understanding the constructions behind the thoughts and actions of the actors of a conflict is necessary and can therefore help in conflict-resolution. But, and that is the main point, the actions themselves are shaped by ideology, there is no such thing as a "natural" behaviour. The results of the study thus do not reveal much about "human nature" and are by no means universally appliable. A realist approach would not be needed if realist thinking had not led to the exact issues it sought to resolve.
TLDR: the study and its results are not wrong, they are just imperfect: like every other realist theory, they lack a deeper understanding of the structures and constructions guiding human behaviour. Realism is at its most accurate with a constructivist perspective.
Very insightful! Thanks
Human behavior is a mixture of nature and culture, it's not either this or that. You argument of humans having zero natural attitudes is extremely vintage and simply wrong.
Also, the constructivist paradigma doesn't answer the question "why?".
Then why dont you try the recreating the experiment then if youre so smart and arrogant about it?
it is identity, scarcity of resource and over enthusiastic leaders and politicians are seeds of conflict.
@@markodiusrex7114 Bro it’s not arrogance to point out logical flaws.
In the military, this is the exact situation that happens. Skin, religion, and other differences are irrelevant. What is important is the struggle and who are helping.
I believe in the Parent, Adult, Child (PAC) theory... So what applies to children, must work for adults as well.
The problem is, manipulative people exists... They play as a flint that starts the flames of conflicts, and this is why it never ends!
One of the main problems I think is that figures of authority encouraged the escalation of conflict. I think the most striking example is that when water became a scarce resource the conflict did not get worse but lessened because authority figures said they needed to work together. If scarce resources drive conflict conflict should have increased but we had cooperation instead.
Most modern wars are over ideology, not scarcity of resources.
Can ideology count as a form of social status?
Russia is a poor country, colonialism was a way to acquire free workers, resources, etc, world wars happened just before and during the worst crise capitalism ever faced (1929), etc. study some history.
I would add modern wars require ideologies, 'not just' scarcity of resources. Sometimes the ideologies will come with a manufactured scarcity of resources. And occasionally whipping up past historic amosities too.
"Discussions don't solve conflicts " that mean no need for politicians 😆
🤣👍
love you guys, keep going 💪
Thank you, you're so sweet!
These tactics are being used against us in real life. It works mostly because most adults are psychological children.
silly ass.
Good theory however it's not only the want for material goods but also the thinking that may differ especially in adults, who are not open to change.
min 3:52 a common goal or enemy that promotes cooperation reduces the friction...
This was implemented in 'Big Boss India' and 'Big Brother'.
This is applicable through all age groups not just children!
"Now they were set to meet each other."
Uh-oh.
I love how every Psychology experiment has a part where they try to recreate The Lord of the Flies.
Awesome, Love u.
This would probably be torpedoed by an “ethics” board if attempted these days…
Yes
And it should be.
@@DMRoper1 Although I think that ethics boards probably do at least as much harm as they do good, in this case, I can’t really disagree.
Thanks!
Thank you so much jejakelana! We appreciate it! :)
I don't think the resources matter at all. We segregate ourselves into groups. It could be my school against your school, or my grade against your grade, or the branch of the military I served in against the branch of the military you served in. Whatever.
The fact that talking with one another doesn't change anything, but working together unites us, is the interesting part.
You're right
You deserve more views
Reminded me of Ayanakoji camp episode
Sometimes it is scarcity, but most of the time it is greed that causes conflicts. Every resource is finite to a certain extent, but greed knows no bounds.
Excellent Video
Glad you enjoyed it :)
I think this makes sense. Think of how united America was after 9/11 when there was a recent tragedy and a common enemy. Friction can arise due to different values, cultures, etc. but a common goal or enemy can unite people.
“not applicable to adults.” My personal opinion of an “adult,” is a person who is able to control his/her emotions. This opinion is based upon over twenty years observing incarcerated inmates. It appears to me that a very portion of Americans lack the ability to self-control their emotions. This just one minor observation/opinion of an old geezer.
all i remember is The Watchmen movie ending
Nice video
Conflicts can also arise from the fact that people have different goals - stated and unstated., which they may or may not be aware of. Also, people are naturally wired to behave in a certain way. The environment also plays a huge role in the choices that they make in the situation that they are in. A great way of getting people to work together is by helping them increase their awareness. This is best done through facilitated discussions.
In this experiment, the discussions didn't really work because the boys were primed to a level where their emotions were highly triggered towards fight responses. In this high emotional state, the brain has limited ability (sufficient blood) to reason cognitively since their blood has been mostly diverted towards arms and legs.
Based on my reading about real tribes where resources are often scarce, people have learnt to share instead of fight. They live in communities, that by definition, support each other.
Interesting 🤔
good video
The adult world short answer. Conflict is what happens when 2 want mores want the same thing and only one thing is available.
Sometimes that involves artillery and other methods of high velocity poisoning.
The Ole, let's you and him fight game!
I could be wrong, but I remember reading this experiment was criticized in some way... initially, the two groups were cooperative, and were only competitive when these zero sum games were introduced. so the researchers fashioned this conflict. and it makes sense. in nature, bonds are formed among the like. it helps for survival. zero sum games in life are usually between predator and prey. but among the same, cooperation is a more viable option to survive.
I wonder if the parents found out and how did they react. Did this type of "experiments" get the researchers in trouble? Were there any legal actions follow suit?
I was a participant in the study… somebody threw a trident 😮
for real?
@@sprouts no… just a silly Anchorman reference. Looks like I only succeeded in amusing myself with that comment 😉
I know this will never be allowed but I’d be curious to see a girl version of this see how they would react.
As a male I don't understand it - but the three girl theory is supposedly real. I only write as conjecture because it has been said, but I have no real experience in this as an observable fact seen by myself. (I look forward to responses).
I suspect the human condition of individual identity and group inclusion form a lot of the actions outside of self-considered reactions, i.e. more knee-jerk emotive responses over thoughtful, deliberate actions (both male and female - humans). We are not animals driven solely by hunger and survival.
It wont work. Girls are too smart for that and they can smell manipulation before you even start brewing it. Realistically and historically speaking, the male species are more prone to manipulation than womens. Men mostly think with their feelings and not with their mind that why they lose the ability, the insight to see the long lasting consequences of their actions. They only think about the present moment, not the future. As long as someone promises them to get what they want, they will stick to that main objective until the very end
Result of this research is applied everywhere in the world now 😅
Yes and at your work too!
Conflicts are less to rise when there are laws that people accept and conform to it.
As the video mentioned that is exactly the economic problem, limited resources and high demands and unlimited desires. But conflicts are not present in a violent manner due to laws that the society accept and feeling of social justice.
Resolutions are not insignificant, if in the experiment they get one from every team and away from the eyes of teams, the opponents will express that they have no problem with each others. It is just how masses behave but individually people behave more rationally.
If there's a problem in society, know that those with money and influence either did it for gain or will use it for gain and you'll be the pawn.
The field of Social Psychology does a more in-depth discussion of how conflicts happen and how to dismantle conflict.
So you're saying we DO need renewable resources--GOT IT!!! 😊
When joining the army, I soon found out that the "We vs.Them" attitude was at every level. Compagnie against Compagnie, Platoon against Platoon, Group against Group and even ingroup divisions! It was a competitive thing. First in a respectful way with making jokes to each other, etcetera, but the hostile way always started as soon there was just one negative incident. Could be too offensive joke, an accidental bump into one and another or even just one in the group outed believes of the other groups ill intentions! And everything then escalated fast! The way I solved this, together with some motivated others, was to trans-group-interact as individual. Helping some one from the other group with a minor thing or saying something positive but in a casual way. Then leave them to set the next move towards you. Curiosity brought, most of the time, the one who received the positive gesture and one or two others to come to me for a talk or something when alone. Like a recon unit. Trying to find out whether you would continu a positive attitude towards them and why you would do this. And then talking from my own perspective as to why I think it is ignorant to be against a group, just because they are another group. Giving examples about how it would be when is was assigned to their group or any other and that then they supposed to be the good guys and my unit wouldn't. Or that we have another enemy to face later on, that it is important to collaborate instead of fighting. After this, hang out with one or two of them and invite them into your own group while having told people in your own group how relaxed the others were when met as individuals. In other words, let the other pack sniff you and then let your pack sniff them! Within a few days, most were doing their best to see only positive things in the others and vice versa (a kind of compensation). Just a few stayed reluctant or annoyed in interacting with the other groups. I think it is a defending mechanism! Unknown makes unloved! But men in general would like their surrounding filled with friends, not enemies! Because of always potential danger and also to be stronger as a whole to defy other hostile groups! That said, I think that this relate to men! Women have a different group dynamics and interaction with out-group women.
Great insights! Sex differences may exist surely however we women too would want to be surrounded by friends :)
@@sprouts Alright! I take you word on it! I just do not have enough knowledge about it! 😇
@@sprouts BTW. I've been around and was often an intermediator between groups who had some negative attitudes towards each other. Maybe because I am an INFJ-type or something.
@@sprouts Hi, Thanks, I agree with you (of course) but the base of what is determined as behavior of a friend and thus who you consider to be a friend, is different between men and women. That's why the dynamics among women in a group are also different in a group.
With the limited resources, if they get what they want brings satisfaction/ friction ( if they don't get).
if all it takes is a common goal then I really don't get what is going on in the world.. I mean we all want to live.. have a nice warm place to sleep and something to eat.. You people.. have it all and it is still not enough. This Sort of directly intertwines with the laws of stupidity video.
The worst part of this Alalysis is that you can't talk out of conflict.
This is why we need aliens to attack us.
They learned four things from the study. The fact that one of them wasn't that it's a bad idea to perform psychological experiments on children without telling their parents strongly suggests that their conclusions are not to be trusted. I would be very interested to know if any of these kids suffered any negative effects as a result of their participation.
Competition for Resources is not the only reason. Ideologies can cause conflict just as bad.
2:05 Limited resources
This seems to be focused solely on developed western societies. Cooperation is common amongst hunter gatherer tribes where paucity is commonplace. Abundance is a driver of competition and greed.
Do a study about groups who think they are oppressed given power. Do they go on to oppress their oppressors?
Wow....
If the boys had set the staff quarters on fire, then slashed their tires and cut the phone lines, this would have made a great movie.
Reluctantly... It just has to be done.
It's not just competition over resources. I've worked with people who are hostile for no reason, and will jump on any opportunity to promote themselves by making you look bad. I think this behavior happens for attention, rank, reputation, appearance, or even a preferred parking spot. People will fight over pretty much anything.
People engage in conflict simply to bolster their sense of identity, or because their identity has been threatened. It doesn't require any actual resources to be involved. A lot of what we see on the internet and in politics is people using out-group hostility to ruminate on and bolster their own in-group identity.
Ok I see the validity to a certain point. That certain point, these are children, not emotionally mature adults capable of peaceful negotiations. Though, to be fair, many adults are not emotionally mature or trained in negotiating, but negotiators and diplomats are a thing.
The first conclusion, that underlying dissimilarities (race, religion, culture, etc) are not important is not supported by the results of the experiment. Rather the experiment established that competition for scarce resources is SUFFICIENT for conflict. More broadly, this matters because different cultures, technologies, degrees of education, etc alter the relevant importance of various resources. Thus, two groups might spark a conflict over a given scarce resources if both perceive it to be important, but two different groups in otherwise identical circumstances might not spark a conflict over the identical scarce resource, simply because one or both do not perceive it as important.
Realistic Conflict Theory seems to mirro the playbook of some (most?) politicians in the USA
/s/ USMC (Retired)
the comment section was probably designed to be a battle royale area.
Here's what I get:
Lack of resources does leads to conflict and hate but only on the surface. We hate and deny outsiders competing on our resources in general regardless of traits (race, religion, sex, etc.)
The hate we have for each other on specific traits is a product of the manipulation of a third-party person or organization. Just like the camp researchers manipulating the kids to compete and show hate. So the next time u want to hate on someone, think many many times, keep thinking until the end of your life if there's something, someone or any kind of media told you to hate them.
Idk how they got away with this
If the individual(s) are set into this conflict for resource environment from go, the result will always be the same
"You dont have access to that."
"Why?"
"Cause my dad saw it first."
"But my dad was with your dad."
"Yeah, but my dad claimed it first."
"The miracle is; the more we share, the more we have."
Happy Peaxw day kids
In psychology, we learned vaguely about this and more about “super ordinate goals” (the collaboration). I’m assuming that’s because realistic conflict theory doesn’t have much merit as the experiment was flawed as other people in the comments pointed out.
I think the same!
This is how nusantara (or indonesia nowadays) formed, we won't be united without common enemy: a Dutch company
❤❤❤🎉🎉
The experiment is not flawed per se, it studied more than one variable/topic...(1) how hate is formed (and how "sticky" it becomes - resistance to discussion) AND (2) what happens when faced with a common goal enemy. #2 may sometimes solve #1 but not always... the communists and kuomintang in China promptly went back to war after fighting the Japanese in WWII.
Experiments are best done testing/observing only one thing at a time.
Children should never be used for experiments like these... They should have observed/studied people in real life situations instead.
How much do we excuse priming as a variable in this staple-study?
What about the widespread adoption of anecdotal evidence?
Do we think anything about that?
There’s a difference between analogical reasoning and blanket #CopyPasta logic
So.. what’s the common goal for the humans? And what’s the common enemy for the humans?
Let me start: Common goal is to have a enjoyable and advancing human experience. Common enemy would be anything that would stop humans from having a good experience and advance their lives.
Any thoughts?
Sure, it's easy.
Common goal: good realistic management
Common enemy: ideology
You don't get that many conflict if all people want is good management, then the only issues will be how to achieve things, not the what. Ideology changes the what, so it leads to inevitable conflict that cannot be solved.
The first one used to be called the common good, so the good of all. Good realistic management is what would achieve that or try to.
Ideology breaks this by replacing subjective and individual goods over the common good. So you might have "values", or "programs" or simply "home teams". All this breaks the common good and needs to be rejected on sight. China has the best approach right now, it's the closest of it you have. Of course they could do better but have the overall right approach. They reject ideologies and only care about good management.
Children being used for experiments without the parents' permission.
That should be a felony.
As to whether this theory applies to adults:
Top level, controlling, government positions are very limited. Competition for these positions generates a lot of conflict and anger. This leaves government parties divided, making a government mostly dysfunctional.
It is unfortunate that [historically] it seems that ‘war’ with an outside government is what brings opposing parties together [to fight a common enemy].
min 3:48 discussions don't solve conflicts...
The experiment seems to be Situational Design. They created the problems and the solutions. First, the division and then forced them to come together. It seems that similar problems are not hard to find in society. The question comes. How much is natural group identity, and how much is forced?
I was appalled the first time I saw this. I am just as appalled in watching it now. Who experiments with kìds in this way? What parent/guardian would agree to it?
All I see are Aliens experimenting on puny humans. 🤪
Struggle for limited resources is indeed one of the factors that triggers conflict. But in this information age, the most dangerous, massive, unethical, yet the most common cause is the spread of propaganda to form group thinking, by a small group of people with common interest.
Absolutely! Group think is an interesting theory.
And where do those common interests come from? Evil for the sake of being evil?
@@TheFate23 not really. Good and evil is subjective moral perspective. Common interests can be real common interest, but can also derived from individual self interest that’s projected into a larger group. Especially in this information day and age.
About the root cause of the self interest itself are vary and not limited to actual resources being limited. For example greediness, power and domination, racism and hardcore beliefs.
In case of greediness, there’s no amount of resources in this world will be enough. No matter how abundant it is.
In case of power and domination, from certain perspective the cause can be economic, but not always. Example: WWII.
In case of hardcore beliefs, the conflict sourced from misguided and unjustified hatred for another group of people. Not at all about resources.
In short, conflict doesnt always derived from limited resources. Social and political issues are not always derived from economic intentions. This is especially true for the herd/masses who follow blindly whatever their leaders say. They don’t need economic reason to hate each other.
@@sathyath84 You didn't answer my question. WHY "greediness, power and domination, racism and hardcore beliefs" exist in the first place.
WWII started during the worst economic crise of all times, just saying. Racism served to justify slavery aka free workers and a lot of profits.
You are really naive.
@@TheFate23 So are you saying you know WHY greediness, power, and beliefs exist in the first place?
Why don't you just acknowledge that your argument is that you think everything caused by economic intentions?
So you think Hitler kills Jews for the 'resources' they didn't have? You think Jews at that time have some resources that Germans don't? You think fascism and nazism rooted in economic struggle?
What about Islamophobia? Terrorism?
You think every actors in those conflicts need something in terms of resources from the other party?
If I'm naive, than you're narrow minded.
The análisis is incomplete and therefore flawed regarding what works in conflict resolution .
A common goal helps to encourage proper debate to build consensus about how to achieve the goal
In a nutshell a third party manipulated two other groups in order to benefit themselves(collect data for their research in this experiment). As to the argument of saying that talking doesn't resolve conflict, it's a bit of both. Leaders in WWI clearly thought so since the went through considerable lengths to prevent a repeat of the Christmas armistice, since they worried that if the soldiers got too friendly with each other they wouldn't fight. On the flip side talking being better than fighting clearly didn't work in the prelude to WWII nor did it help with Yugoslavia in the 90s.
What all of these have in common is a group of agitators who have something to gain by either starting the conflict or keeping it going. It's most often to secure access to a resource or to control access in order to gain power over another group.
Then there are those conflicts where one group's starting platform is mutually exclusive of the other group. No amount of talking will fix it, there will be a "winner" and a "looser" any amount of compromise will cede ground to the aggressor.
I think scarcity is an issue but I can see a clear example in my country and on my island where things break down a bit. I'm Irish and I don't think you can really say anyone on the island of Ireland has issues of scarcity these days, at least when it comes to material wealth or the basics of life. However, social status is a huge driving factor. I'm not Unionist (pro UK politically) but have tried to understand their abject rejection of Irish self rule. I noticed that predominantly Unionist areas in large urban areas of Northern Ireland are poor (lack resources) or homogenous (one community towns and villages). This creates echo chambers where definition of the community identity is largely done by vilifying the other. "We are loyal British subjects, not republican terrorist taghues (derogatory term for pro Irish)" seems to be a core belief. How we as an island will get past this, who knows, but honestly I'd like to see if any of these boys held grudges after the experiment, just as grudges are held for 100s of years on the two sides in Northern Ireland. For me, that history plays much more of a factor than lack of resources
I think that observing 12 year olds is pointless at least for this exercise