Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
A little behind. If this could have been posted before the NY Times article went archival...
any human could tell you that. Who are these scientists? aliens?
did you forget to take your meds?
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, a month and a year later.
It may feel good at the moment, but what affect does it have on us emotionally in the long run?
If we knew that it might make us think a little more carefully or less about exacting our revenge upon people.
But then again, knowing people, it probaly would not change things one way or another.
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
After 17 years of marriage, a man dumped his wife for a younger woman.
...including the curtain rods.
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...
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"?
Love the Third Amendment?
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Here's 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).
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.
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."
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.
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.
Free XBox, PS2
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.
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.
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.
Repeat joke from submission, get modded funny. Got it.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Sadly evolution has probably coded that revenge is sweet, as long as it is somebody lower in the pecking order.
Letter To Iran
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.
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.
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".
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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 theirs), your telling me that the only thing that makes you feel good is if you hurt them too? That's sick... as in mentally sick - you need help. Most people (like the feces-spreading woman) might get a kick knowing that her former husband has a smelly apartment, but after awhile I would imagine that guilt would set in (or atleast I hope it would), since she LOVED The guy for a LONG time. How can you people just turn love off - yes, even if someone just cheated on you. If you get pissed and can act in this vengeful way then you obviously never loved them and have just been fooling yourself into thinking that you do - in other words - you don't know what love is.
If your spouse of 5 years all of the sudden doesn't have as much interest in you any more, and has a loving interest in another person (not just a fuck-biddy, but a real relationship), you can either try to screw them over somehow, or LET THEM GO BECAUSE YOU LOVE THEM. Most people are almost ALWAYS acting from their ego-centric parts of their mind - in other words - they know not what they do. If you recognize this, you can actually love someone for WHO THEY ARE, and if at one point down the road they do something that you don't agree with - you don't throw all that away, judge them unworthy, and bust out the acts of vengeance - you grow by understanding that they need to live their own lives and so do you. You feel peace in knowing that you can let them go without trying to hurt them back - eventually in life, they will realize that they left a perfectly nice person who was always there for them - not their last vengeful memory of someone trying to fuck them over - then you've just converted all love to hate - this is NOT where you want to be.
As for the car example - its YOUR decision to get pissed off and then its YOUR decision that "getting back" by so vengefully driving by them (ooooh) feels good. A lot of people have decided to feel this way (they don't realize that their choosing - they think its natural human behaviour!) and so the article is true for most people, but its painfully obvious that people do not have to be this way at all. Why do you let a guy who drives beside you and "gets in line first" bother you? The guy must have all the power in the world if he can get you totally pissed off just by driving by you - or is it that you are the most powerless? Perhaps you think you are powerless and that makes you sad/mad (can you say headgames?). Therefore, the only thing you think you can do is to drive by the guy and hope that your 5 second delay really bothered him. Congrats, you are now super-powerul - feel good about yourself.
For a second there, you had the power to let him in and show that you are above all that childish "me first, me first!" crap, but you blew that for a cheap thrill that if you thought about it, you shouldn't really be having. Turns out your still children but with X number of years of hiding/transforming your childish tendencies as effectively as possible - so effectibve that you don't even realize it - not even when your called on it in an article such as this one.
The key is to actually CHANGE your behaviour to grow and feel at peace, not just change its form so it can make you act the same way with some new made-up justification.
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
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:
- Eliminating the reason (for example poverty and social inequalities).
- Education (for example learn to deal with jealousy, envy, and other desires and feelings in a non-violent way)
- Deterrance (if you commit a crime, face the consequences).
- 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.
As Gandhi said
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Python script to convert photos into "artsy" portraits: http://p2pbridge.sf.net/pyPortrait/
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.