Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds Most Would Become Supervillians If Given Powers
It probably comes as no surprise, but researchers have found that most of us would gladly put on a mask and fight do-gooders if given super powers. From the article: "But power also acts like strong cologne that affects both the wearer and those within smelling distance, Galinsky noted. The person gains an enhanced sense of their importance, and other people may regard them with greater respect as well as extend leniency toward their actions. That combination makes for an easy slide into corruption."
One man's villain is another man's hero.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
For the vast majority of people, the most heroic thing they could do if ever presented with Superman-like powers would be to immediately reject them. A real human presented with such powers would likely be a much greater threat to the rest of humanity than a help. Sure, he might start out rescuing cats from trees and people from burning buildings, but how long before he has a mood swing or a temper tantrum? How long before he succumbs to narcissism and the kind of arrogance and paranoia that god-like powers would bring. How long before he comes to resent humanity for not loving him enough, or worshiping him at the level he has come to believe is sufficient?
And all that's not even factoring in the reality that this is a human being with sexual desires, greed, etc. How would this real life Clark Kent react the first time a girl turned him down for a date, or he didn't have money to pay his credit card bill? You can get into some VERY dark territory there.
Again, such a superhero would almost certainly be way more of a threat to humanity than a help. Unless there was an alien invasion or giant meteor strike imminent that he could stop, he would be much more likely to cause us way more harm than good.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
For myself, I would want to be the villain since they tend to be more intelligent. Granted, they time to time do stupid things like killing the hero slowly and explaining all their plans.
I would destroy ACTA, DRM, IP and all the rest monsters. Anyone with me?
He has the power of a god, but deep down, he's still Clark Kent.
I don't think a good proportion of us would go that far.
Give me superman-like powers and I'd be trying to drastically change the world, not protect it.
How about just being selfish and pretty amoral? I bet a lot of folks could do that. It's not plotting-to-take-over-the-world villainry, but it's not good either.
Compared with that, why would anyone want to be a good guy?
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
Maybe, but that's not what those studies say. You seem to assume that someone has a conscious choice to be hero or villain and intentionally choose villain.
Most people seem to have that kind of delusion. For them you're either clearly doing good and you know it, or you're aware that pillaging and burning is wrong but you deliberately chose evil. Their world has some people who basically chose to be villains and know they're villains.
You can even look at fictional organizations like SPECTRE (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) in otherwise non-parody movies. And it comes easy to swallow that someone would come up with a business plan like, basically, "I know, let's make an organization that's all about placing bombs and extortion, 'cause that market hardly has enough supply to meet the demand." And then a bunch of people would basically go, "yay, I always wanted to be an evil minion! Where do I sign up?"
In reality what these studies show has nothing to do with choosing to wear tights or twirl a moustache and cackle manically. They just show that most people, if given power, or even if role-playing a position of power, find it increasingly easy to rationalize bad behaviour. They're not choosing to be evil, they just rationalize being a complete dick as _good_ or at least excusable.
And not just business decisions. That's the fun part. Sure, you can rationalize evil business decisions via what I call an "argument from capitalism": being evil is good if it makes some investor money. But it extends beyond that.
E.g., in a study people role-playing some executive-level boss with a posh office would find a $100 bill. And most would not just pocket it and forget about it, but actually lie if someone came asking about it. Whereas those role-playing the peons would be less likely to.
Or like in that baker's statistic that folks on the executive level were more likely to take a sandwich without paying for it, than the peons on the cubicle floor.
The illusion that now you're above those pesky peons and their judgments extends not just deciding if to cut costs by dumping radioactive waste in the Mediterranean (actually happened, btw), but even to that kind of stuff. It's not even about fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders or anything, but basically about being a dick. Those in positions of power can rationalize it better and for being more of a dick.
It applies to heroes vs villains only in as much a case can be made that if they suddenly found Plato's ring and could be untraceable whenever they want, most people wouldn't think "yay, now I can do some serious good with this power", but rather "yay, let's steal some money from the bank" or even "yay, now I can take revenge on the boss/ex-gf/whatever".
Granted, as TFA points out, not all people. Some actually go in overdrive with applying higher standards to themselves when given power or an illusion of power. So I guess you'd get some heroes too. Most just start rationalizing more of what they want and now can take and be de facto villains.
But the fun part is that neither would actually consider themselves villains. Someone could be just in the process of leaving with a sack of cash from the bank and just think it's the due that society always owed them, or that they're actually doing a good thing because they might give a tiny portion of that to charity, or really whatever rationalization.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If you read a lot of comics, you will see that many super villains started out life as "guys having bad days" (The new back story for the Jocker, for example. Or Mr. Freeze). Somebody who represents authority then comes along (in these cases, Batman) and makes things worse.
Suppose you had super strength and you accidentally hurt somebody. All it would take would be for some woman in the crowd to scream and some twitchy cop to come running and to see you standing over somebody covered in blood, and to get the wrong idea. A gun is draw, maybe shots are fired. Next thing you know your on the run and everybody thinks your a criminal.
Maybe you turn yourself in, maybe you get jumped by a swat team and give up without a fight. The newspapers are already against you. The conservative media is already saying that you're a threat that needs to be controlled, and even the liberal media is saying that you're dangerous because you may accidentally injure somebody.
You're an outcast, angry and alone, and the only people who want to know you will probably be the military who want to turn you into a weapon. Do you honestly think that you would become a super hero after that?
The typical human reaction is to run away, or to fight back. Either way you'd be regarded as a super villain without having to blow up a single train or to poison a single troupe of Boy scouts (If you know pick up this reference you're either a super nerd, or are showing your age).
Hancock went to the middle of cities and stopped car chases.
I think what GP has in mind is more of a Dr Manhattan "War is obsolete, have free energy, I sure hope there's no super-smart guy who can make this into a bomb" kind of change the world.
Consider that the only outcome at the end of both the film and the original graphic novel is indeed "world peace." Either under the guise of mutual self interest in stopping Dr Manhattan / alien race, or an end to world hunger and war brought about by free and abundant energy. Viedt's manipulation of Dr Manhattan, and his underhanded scheme was moot. Hence Dr Manhattan's last line to Viedt in the graphic novel.
In other words, to change the world you need to think big. Hancock failed at that.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I wouldn't spend my efforts trying to destroy mankind, but I'd probably rob a bank every now and then.
Sweet informative mod.
How about just being selfish and pretty amoral? I bet a lot of folks could do that. It's not plotting-to-take-over-the-world villainry, but it's not good either.
That would be most people. So you're one superman, there's 7 billion people who have emergencies. Maybe I'd fly down to the Mexican Gulf to plug that oil leak but I wouldn't kill myself trying to save everybody. Not that I'd have to do crime of any type, I figure BP would pay me enough for that one job to make me set for life. I'd just be no worse than the other billionaires out there.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
First off, I need to stress that I'm really not into American comic books. I knew nearly nothing about the Xmen before the movies came out. What I do know today is really only from watching the movies.
Once the background for Magneto was shown, I couldn't think of him as a villian. The line between a hero and villan isn't black and white, but indistinct shades of grey.
Here's my thing. How much of myself am I supposed to give if I am
1. the only super hero ever.
2. a member of a small super hero population
3. a member of a large super hero population.
What I mean is, even if you are a super hero, are we to allways give 100% and not take care of ourselves?
I want to do what I can to help mankind, but I just don't know how I can spend more than a few hrs a day doing it (with occasional long days for meteors & allien invasion), especially when I still have to work a regular job to pay my bills.
I'm not taking endorsements, I don't think it's ethical. I'd like to have other hobbies and a vacation on occasion.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
In other words, to change the world you need to think big. Hancock failed at that.
Which made him human, like us. It is easy to say "think big" until you are overburdened with all the people who want cats rescued from trees, and want you to save them from the small stuff. ...
Kind of like being an IT support guy. You start with grand visions of documenting the entire network, getting all software installed properly and up to date and so on. You end up bitter, cynical and overworked from answering too many calls from people who accidentally pressed the Num Lock key, while your bosses have no idea what needs to be done so they assume you have nothing to do.
Miracleman/Marvelman by Alan Moore
Supreme Power by JMS
Black Summer by Warren Ellis
I suppose there's a reason why they refer to Superman as a "boy scout". Anything less will become...messy.
I call it the CEO effect.
But... the future refused to change.