Revenge Really Does Taste Sweet

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."

Comments

What this might mean

[kjones692]

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

[mothz]

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 revenge did invite escalation, because he walked around the table and hit me, and then I elbowed him in the crotch. Then it was over, and that kid never bothered me again. But forgiveness? I tried that for about five minutes before I chucked the textbook at his head. Forgiveness doesn't always diffuse things.

Re:What this might mean

[bahwi]

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 "startle reflex" which people who fire guns, including policemen and military people, still have. It's quite interesting and to find out that it is wired in the brain leads us closer to finding a way to eliminate it.

Of course you are correct, going against basic instincts is a very bad thing. But what about eliminating them?

Re:What this might mean

[abiggerhammer]

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 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

[G4from128k]

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.

Not only revenge

[Metteyya]

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

[AtlanticCarbon]

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.

Hmmm

[Merovign]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[Merovign]

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 anyone who cannot think of a single example of success via force.

I'm not suggesting YOU must like the consequences, but to say that violence never works.... talk about setting yourself up for a fall.

You have to start your philosophy in the world you live in. If you want peace, you have to make it happen, it isn't going to happen by itself. It it isn't ever going to happen as long as people deceive themselves about the causes and consequences of violence.

Depends on pecking order

[DumbSwede]

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

[Reziac]

[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

EVERYTHING we do is pleasure center based

[scotay]

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.

Re:Let's admint it... revenge feels good

[tsg]

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 more, and that the cry of "no fair" would be rare indeed. But it was surprisingly common. These particular children would rather get nothing for themselves than allow the other child to take advantage of them. I would not be surprised to find that revenge and the idea of justice being done causes pleasure in the human brain.

A Christian Perspective

[rimbaldi]

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 life, perfect justice is never possible; however, the state is an instrument of God's justice, as imperfect as it might be. The reason one should not take things into their own hands is it demonstrates a lack of faith in God's final justice. Either the offender will be paid for his transgressions, or if the offender is a Christian, Christ paid for his transgressions.

This may seem hopelessly unfair, buy why? God is vindicated and is proved just, and people are punished according to their deeds. The only unfair part are those who go free because Christ paid the penalty for what they did. This is the Christian definition of love. While we were taking pleasure in our revenge for cutting people off, Christ died to restore those who would turn from their vengefulness and place their trust in his sacrifice on their behalf. This is also called grace, or unmerited favor.

One final note: In the Christian religion, God is the standard of justice. Because he is seen as the author of creation, he has the right to make the rules, which people have a natural tendency to rebel against. It is this attitude of rebellion that leads to people taking "justice" into their own hands. It is also this attitude of despising all authority that threatens to separate them from God forever.