On Killing...

[Jib]

I'm currently reading a book that explores the nature of taking a fellow human's life by Dave Grossman. While not 100% pirate period it does bring up a factor that might add to discussion. Grossman states that 98% of people who take life in combat are deeply bothered by this. 2% seem to be immune to the feelings of guilt and may even relish the encounter. I was wondering if these 2% might just have found themselves on pirate ships at various times in history.

The book has a lot more statistics and research into warfare, distance between foes, and training to get a solider to fire his weapon at his foe. If you like military history or are curious about the taboo of taking a life this book might be for you. I caution: not for the meek. It is available on Amazon.

[hurricane]

Most of the combat veterans I know fall into the first category. I think it's human nature to. It doesn't mean that you primitive instincts wouldn't kick in no matter what. I have never even hit a person, but if it was me or him, I wouldn't hesitate to kill. Pirates weren't much different. Him or me. Live or die. Eat or be eaten.

What's missing in the analysis is the life and times they lived in. Violence was a natural part of their existence. Even in England, which could be argued was fairly civilized, it wasn't uncommon to find a dead baby in the refuse piles or in the gutter. Times were tough. Death was normal, either from natural causes or violence against one another in a dog-eat-dog world.

Life was short then too. It was more of a matter of choosing how you were going to die if you could. Better to live as a pirate and takes what comes with it in order to make a better than meager living than to live life as a beggar on the streets of London.

And the legends don't necessarily bear out the realities of the famous pirates we hear about. For example, there still is no documentation (and I only got this from the guy who found the QA Revenge) that Blackbeard ever killed anyone, outside of someone in his own crew, perhaps. Yet, we see him as a violent man who was a murderer.

We place far more value on life these days than they did back then, I think. Just witness the memorials we raise on the sides of roads to people killed by drunk drivers, the flowers and stuffed animals we leave for murdered children in their yards, and the cars driving around with an "Im Memory of.... so and so". We can't seem to fathom death and its inevitable consequences these days.

That's just my thoughts...

-- Hurricane

[Raphael Misson]

Very interesting. I was just writing about how a person would be bothered by killing someone. This pretty well sums up my conclusion. (And I suggest the 2% are more bothered than they care to admit. The trouble with self-reported surveys is that they tend to cause the surveyed to alter their opinion in accordance with either what they think the interviewer wants to here or the image they want to project. This problem could work both ways in this case, of course.)

[hurricane]

That is a really good point, Raphael, sir. I would agree with that 98% (the other 2% of me wants to pretend he doesn't believe you.)

- Hurricane

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

That would depend on alot of things and human nature is not nearly that cut-and-dry. The situation in which one is forced to take a life in defense may have an entirely different effect on the same person than wanton killing for pleasure or profit. I really distrust those figures speaking form personal experiences.

Bo

[Raphael Misson]

I am not talking about the what would go into the act of killing someone, I am speaking to the after-effects of doing so. I believe there would be doubt and remorse in nearly all cases. (This can be bred out to some degree by repetition of the act from what I've read.) I would suggest that in the cases where there was no remorse after the first killing someone committed, that person would be considered psychologically unstable in some way. This may also account for the 2%. (They currently figure 25% of the population would qualify as having a psychological illness, but most of these people wouldn't have the extreme sort of illness that would produce this sort of outcome.)

That's just my opinion from my psychology studies to date.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Raphael Misson

[MadL]

I have to stand with Capt'n Bo on this one. The human mind is way too complex and the issues around life and death, the taking and saving thereof, battle, why, and even when (as repeatably stated even in this forum - people back then did not 'think' as we do today) - there is no way to put such simple numbers and figures to such a matter.

Also I recall a study where they found back in one of the WW (I or II I can't recall) that Air Force pilots did not seem to be as effected as ground troops, reason given: they did not 'See' their enemy before dropping the bomb, or in case of air-to-air they did not see the 'faces' (in most cases) of the one they shot down. Also they would not see the aftermath so therefore was less prone to the factors that would make a hand to hand victor take deeper thought in what just occurred.

But this topic is just Way too deep for some arm chair B of A BS degree demigod to put such simple figures and numbers to. To be honest and blunt; I take offense to his claim

*edited to add*

(I was doing two conversations at once)

The air-to-air vs hand-to-hand combat I feel would also encompass many a pirate as well. Are we speaking of a pirate stealing on board and slitting another's throat or the one who shot a cannon shot on board the other ship? Also as Bo points out, there is a BIG difference when one is fighting for survival vs someone who is indeed warped and killing on the streets for fun. Killing for "profit" now that also is not so cut and dry, a solo hired assassin would be in a much more different situation then a band of hired soldiers (remember, pirates for the most part, in their mind where soldiers, just not soldiers her royal service). Then there are those who are ambushed and literally forced to kill for survival.

True I believe that if any human looks 'deep' into the act afterward they can convince themself to either accept it or not accept it, it all depends on so many issues and circumstances and the individual him/herself. There are those who killed for they had literally NO Choice of kill or be killed and they know that if they had not then they would be then one laying dead yet they will have a total break down, even when they and everyone around them know it was the only choice to make, then you have the total bastard who goes out and kills just so they can become a member of a street gang and yet you never seem him/her have any apparent concerns or regrets - - it is all in what and how you handle your own brain, what and how you were taught ALL throughout your life (not just as a baby, not just what you were trained last month - ALL THROUGHOUT) and the variable are just so vast and literally each person and each incidence is completely individual. There is No way to lump people into such a cut-n-dry "You are in the 98% and you are in the 2%" type cookie jars

Edited January 8, 2009 by MadL

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

I should have been more clear on the point I was trying to make. It comes down to demographics, religious beliefs/convictions, and ethnic background along with a myriad of other considerations. Consider this; if he is talking about western European Christians, those numbers may be , well, "close" but far from accurate. What did english do to the Irish? Irish were not even placed in as high a place as an African slave. Consider African tribesmen, Carribean cannibals, radical Muslims, Chinese, etc. etc. Native Americans as well. Not that life wasn't valued to some degree, but killing, warfare and death were just part of the cycle of life and little time was spent dwelling on killing in warfare. It was an honorable thing to vanquish the enemy, and sometimes eat of his flesh. Same thing in South America, where some tribes skinned the slain and wore the skin as a sign of respect for the worthy opponent. These consideration blow those stats out of the water, excuse the pun. What I witnessed in Central America in 1985-86 is enough to convince me that far more than 2% have no value for human life, nor conscience to bother them.

Bo

[MadL]

For that matter just take America and Mexico; over at the Tavern there was discussion about a show on ghost hunters, out of curiosity I caught some of the International Ghost Hunters last night, part of it dealt with a Mexican graveyard where they keep hundreds of mummies. One of the commentator's lines hit right on what Capt'n Bo is saying; down in Mexico they 'embrace' the dead, the dead are kept around "right out in the street" (or something like that he said) where in America we try to hide the dead, make death a 'taboo' - two completely different cultures but right next door to one another. Down in parts of South America they actually go into th' crypts of their ancestors and bring the remains HOME for dinner once a year, then parade them down th' streets on their way back t' their graves...to them that is just life (rather 'life after death').

Now with that bit o' modern day fact; do you think th' 2% figure hold true in Mexican society? Or would it stand reason that Mexican (who are very Catholic in general) are much more de-sensitized t' death?

And th' list goes on, as Capt'n Bo above points out. Another reason I really hate 'surveys' - Who did they survey? When where they surveyed? What questions where asked and how where they presented? Who was the questionnaire? and most importantly - WHY did they NOT ask me in this 'survey'!?

Edited January 9, 2009 by MadL

[Raphael Misson]

Also I recall a study where they found back in one of the WW (I or II I can't recall) that Air Force pilots did not seem to be as effected as ground troops, reason given: they did not 'See' their enemy before dropping the bomb, or in case of air-to-air they did not see the 'faces' (in most cases) of the one they shot down. Also they would not see the aftermath so therefore was less prone to the factors that would make a hand to hand victor take deeper thought in what just occurred.

They have done studies that prove this. I forget the Doctor of Psychology (not BA of BS) who did the study, but it was basically that they told participants to apply shocks, the amount of which they could select, to disguised victims and then did the same with victims that they could see. The amount of shock chosen to be given to the white garbed victims was statistically more significant than to those who were visible.

(Psychology studies are performed with with rigid scientific controls. Dismissing them because you disagree with the results is fine, but you're most likely making a much greater mistake than they are.)

Edited January 9, 2009 by Raphael Misson

[hurricane]

I wrote about that very study for a client's book... here's the overview of the study.

There’s an interesting piece of research that was conducted by Stanley Milgram. Back in the 1960s, he did some groundbreaking research surrounding authority figures. It’s a bit technical, but if you follow along, I think you’ll get something out of it. In fact, it was so powerful that the techniques he used have been banned from being taught in most circles.

Milgram wanted to understand whether authority figures mattered when something needed to be done. His methods were a bit unorthodox, but telling.

Here’s how the experiment worked. He began by telling prospective research subjects that he was conducting an experiment that looked at whether punishing someone for doing something incorrectly would actually improve their performance. It involved three people: a researcher, a test taker and a “punisher”. As the test taker answered each question, the researcher would tell them if it was wrong or right. If it was wrong, the punisher was told to penalize them, the belief being that the negative stimulus would encourage the test taker to do better on the next question.

The reason the study was unethical was because that wasn’t the true purpose of the experiment.

The actual experiment worked this way. Each time the researcher told the test taker they had answered wrong, the punisher did indeed administer a penalty. He or she would give the test taker a shock. It wasn’t a real shock, but the punisher didn’t know this. Each time the “shock” was administered, the test taker would react to it and yell out in pain.

The experiment was meant to see how far the person giving the shock would go, given the fact that he was being asked to do the shocking by a doctor in a lab coat. Would the subject of the study continue to shock someone else, simply because an authority figure told them to?

Each time the shock was administered, the level was increased. As the test went on, the test taker increased his response in concert with the apparent shock. Finally, the punisher could hear the test taker scream in the other room. Still he or she continued to administer shocks. Finally, the dial was turned up full to where a sign warned of impending danger. Finally, around the 10th or 12th question, the test taker clutched his heart and the punisher heard a slam as the person supposedly slumped over in their chair. The researcher would continue to tell the punisher to administer more shocks, even as the person supposedly lay unconscious in the next room.

The truly shocking part of the study was that 80% of the people in the study continued to shock the person all the way to the point where the person supposedly had a heart problem, all because a person who looked like an authority figure told them to.

Obviously, this kind of study created a lot of stress, even when the subject of the study was told what had actually happened afterwards. While this type of study is no longer done, they did end up doing 20 variations of the experiment to validate the results. In the role of the punisher, they put young people, old people, every ethnic group you could think of, educated people, uneducated people, wealth people and the poor. The results were consistent across the board. 80% of the people tested would shock the test taker to the max. These subjects would obey the person of authority and literally cause (at least in their minds) someone to lose consciousness after complaining of a heart problem.

The next question that came to mind was what kind of situation would cause a person to listen to an authority and comply so readily. They changed several aspects of the study. They altered the timing and the environment. They changed several parameters of the test.

Only one variable changed the 80% compliance rate. When they removed the white lab coat and stopped addressing the researcher as doctor, the rate dropped dramatically to just 20%.

Amazing, isn’t it? By removing a coat and changing a reference, the compliance rate dropped by 60 full points just because of the absence of an authority figure.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Milgram’s study showed that authority figures are extremely influential. An authority has a lot of power; power which can be used for good or for bad. And with this great power comes tremendous responsibility.

I want to point out the fact that whether Milgram’s researcher was a doctor or not didn’t matter. While people involved in the study addressed him as such, no one in the study ever questioned his credentials. He had the trappings of authority, a lab coat and the title doctor and that was enough for the subject in the role of the punisher. The lesson to learn here is that it’s not the actual authority that counts; it’s the appearance of being an authority.

Without going further into the historical uses and abuses of authority or the ethics of Milgram’s work, it’s safe to say from the study that by being an authority figure, your chances of being heard, listened to and acted upon is three times greater than if you say the exact same thing without being a perceived authority.

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

But here again, who was chosen for the tests? was it from a group of battle hardened warriors, or doclile humans who have never seen a violent act? Were they from around the world, or only from their own "backyard"? This really is important to an accurate study, and remember, psycologists are also trained to manipulate situations to better understand them. I have a few psyc classes under my belt and an adoloescent psyc class startin next week. I know about Milgram, and he is questionable at best. I'm also taking criminology classes, and really, when you get into the criminal element of killing, those numbers are completely wrong. 15 year old gang bangers don't have any remorse for killing as they know nothing else. Makes a big difference on who gets studied is the point.

Bo

[Dutchman]

for further insight into mindsets, look into these folks

www.killology.com

col. danny mcknight

dick marcinko (before swollen head and prison)

carlos hathcock

[hurricane]

All studies of humans are flawed. I learned this in sociology oh, so many years ago (it was my minor). All studies can be poked apart by the fact that you're dealing with humans who are by their nature, moldable. It's silly to think there's ever been a perfect study. In fact, all of sociology (Social Deviance was my favorite class -- my final term paper was on brothels as deviant behavior) is the study of studies that have been proven false or flawed by another sociologist. Psych can't be much different. After all, a convicted criminal isn't going to be honest about his feelings about killing. His values and ethics are already skewed by whatever initial crime he did that went against society (learned that in Criminal Sociology ).

The only thing Milgram's study really shows is that people are generally sheep. Individuals have a herd mentality and will follow whatever shepherd guides them. A lot people respond to authority. It's why I never joined the military. I would have been imprisoned as soon as they ordered me to "drop and give me 20." Not a good rule follower.

-- Hurricane

[Mission]

While no study is perfect (and most are open to interpretation, especially in the human studies), they are better than sitting around saying, "Well I don't see it that way. My opinion is..."

And Milgram did a lot of studies other than the one you're referring to. He spent 20 or 30 years doing studies on violence. I don't know that he was the one that did the study I'm talking about. (OTOH, I don't know that he didn't.)

I did say that after the first killing, people will probably become more hardened to the act. (Actually, I would guess it would be after the second one.) I think someone who kills for the first time without any inner remorse (note: not what they publicly avow or are encouraged to admit to) would probably be considered psychologically damaged. But that's just MHO. (Having said that, go back and read the first sentence again... )

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

Really though, studying in a controlled environment manipulated by the person doin it is worth what? Experience in the real world and paying attention to what is going on around you naturally is priceless. Making things happen is not the same as watching them happen without interference or manipulation or choosing your subjects. for these reasons I shun results of controlled psycological studies. Put simply; real-life trumps lab-rats everytime.

Bo

Edited January 9, 2009 by Capt. Bo of the WTF co.

[Graydog]

If you'd like to read a book on individuals’ reaction to killing, motivation to kill, how to react when people don't kill that are suppose to kill and general more about killing than you need to know, written by a person with a PhD in History, then I highly recommend:

Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, by Christopher R. Browning.

I think you may find the Lithuanians called in to kill Polish Jews didn't suffer a 98% remorse rate and actually enjoyed their work.

In some cases the more killing the less likely people would continue to kill. Browning points out there is not so much a norm to how people react but a continuum scale that if charted would look like a bell curve that any particular individual could be anywhere on the curve from refusing to kill to enjoying to kill, but there is very much projectable group norm of reaction from within the German Reserve Police. Understanding that reaction established how the German's staffed the camp system to avoid the performance problems they had with the German Reserve Police.

This is one of the most fascinating books I have ever read. It gets into mechanics of how Germans (you know people actually a lot like us) reacted in situations where they were ordered to shoot masses of people. It also addresses remorse as this is a consideration for not just the first person shot, but the second or third or maybe 200th. It talks about refusal to kill at the individual and unit level, it goes on to speak of how people followed orders and killed people before lunch, but then after lunch started spiriting people away to keep them alive, it talks about people that wouldn’t stop killing at the end of the day who had become empowered and want to kill more. A very good book with some surprising reactions noted.

[Mission]

That's quite interesting, Graydog. It goes against my supposition, but it still supports the idea that remorse and conscious steps in.

[Graydog]

Actually the book is more in keeping with what Capt. Bo has said that reality trumps theory.

As you suggested the book does say that some people do become hardened, but within that proviso is "some" not all people become hardened. That is why the book was so very interesting in the magnitude of different ways people reacted. Then it was interesting in the way the German state reacted to the people that stopped killing or would not kill. Especially in cases where the commanding officer told their higher ups to piss off "Germans don't do that to helpless civilians", and in other cases where some soldiers just drifted away from execution locations because they had had enough killing for that day, but they'd come back tomorrow (it's like their breaking point was like 6-20 people shot a day were the max the could handle doing, but with a break they’d be back at it on the morrow.)

The book is a continuum of human reaction, there is no 97.654% of the people behave like this; rather it was very explicit that nobody could do well predicting an individual's reaction, but within a group of the same background and heritage there were certain norms that would be expected out of the group, not individual, as percentage results.

Now, to be fair it is a bit of a dry read in the introduction but once it get's going its one of the few historical account books I have ever stopped and said to myself, wow, I had no idea that was happening. For illuminating the dark side of human behavior it’s just a fascinating book to me.

[Quartermaster James]

But it's a quantum leap now, isn't it?

From remorse & hardening to enjoying?

[Mission]

But it's a quantum leap now, isn't it?

From remorse & hardening to enjoying?

Instantaneous, you think? Or just hard to make?

[Jib]

Interesting comments... The book does speak directly to the test that Hurrincane mentions and states that people will do certain things they deem immoral under the direction of a figure of authority.

Grossman is a former Ranger and most of his research is from speaking with former vets. He also mentions the book "Face of Battle" that uses military history as a theme. On Killing talks about the distance factor that a couple of you mentioned (easier to kill from a distance as opposed to with bare hands). Grossman also speaks about the Jewish Holocaust and other atrocities (without sounding callous he states the benefits of of the dark powers of atrocity). On Killing also shows meaures that can and are being taken to have soliders fire at the enemy 95% of the time. While a bleak subject the book is easy to read and well presented. Gives me insight into our service men and women who return home from the Middle East.

I think pirates may have used another factor Grossman speaks about... Posturing!

[MadL]

I think one would also have to be very careful when trying t' fit pirates int' these discussions of Holocaust and Vietnam, and personally I would not put ANYTHING of concern with th' Holocaust in relation to our troops currently coming home from th' Middle East. The atrocities of the Holocaust and what our troops are doing in the Middle East and what happened in Vietnam have nothing to do with each other - 'complete inhalation' and winning a battle via war are two different issues and the killing what happens are under completely different situations and completely different mind sets. Sure come can argue of similarities but in its rawest sense they would only be nit-picking the futile and completely off the mark. (*edit* let me clarify this statement better: Holocaust vs Middle East/Vietnam have no parallels)

Now back to pirates, also pirates who kill would be more under the mindset of battle troops, not Germans being forced to commit atrocities of mass killing of 'non-combatants marched into a pit' or corralled into a pen for slaughter. Where the killings of the Holocaust was to 'cleanse the world', ie: wipe out a race, the pirates killed primarily for one of three reasons:

1) obtain the wealth of the ship(s) they attacked

2) survival if attacked

3) revenge after surviving either a failed attack or an attack that earlier when bad (or a double cross of a Governor o' some town/port they had dealings with)

Then there was the privateers and pirates with letter o' marque, they too had a goal not so much to commit Holocaust of another race but to defend the seas and lands from those deemed 'the enemy invaders'.

Now depending on which crew you discuss, which nationality they where and what era of time (GAoP, pre-GAoP) one could nick-pick out those that were pressed into th' crew, now those individuals could fit into the descriptions of the Germans ordered to kill (with still some differences in factors) but I would have to lean toward them being the 2% for you could not have a crew that was 98% percent Against or even marginally against th' kill and only 2% killing willingly...that would clearly lead to a mutiny and a failed attack.

I think if one wanted more of an accurate look into a pirate's mind at time killing then they would need to look toward studies of the Foreign Legion, mercenaries, vigilantes, or even bank robber gangs of the alleged Wild West (I say 'alleged Wild West' due to some very interesting statistics I recently learned about just how 'wild' the Wild West was in reality verses today's common presumption due to movies and 'stories' - looks like Wild Wild East and Tame West would be more appropriate titles)

Edited January 10, 2009 by MadL

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

Reading accounts of the tortures and murders committed by pyrates upon their victims suggests that there were few who objected or were bothered with the thought of their actions as well. look at what the Spaniards were doing during this period. No remorseful statements have ever been published in any accounts of Spanish barbarity that I am aware of.

Bo

Edited January 10, 2009 by Capt. Bo of the WTF co.

[Mission]

That could also have to do with the fashion of the time. Plus few people could write. Plus how many diaries (since candid comments seem to wind up in diaries) have you read of Spanish people during this period? How many do you know of that have been even translated so you can read them? (I often wonder what a Spanish sailor would have had to say when doing my studies. I have read a dozen English accounts, but I haven't even seen a Spanish account. I've only heard about some French accounts because they haven't been translated. So my research is decidedly one-sided.)

I think when it comes to remorse, the question you should start with (for we are starting in the middle) is what is necessary for remorse? I suggest, at its core, it is not social mores, nor is it religious doctrine, nor is it governmental edict. These things all encourage people not to kill other people, but they are not sufficient to stop people.

What is that would make you (yes, you) remorseful over the killing of another person? (Hint: look at what happened to parts of the fighting groups during trench warfare following the German/French/Scottish truce at Christmas in 1914. It is something very basic to humanity, whatever time period you want to consider.)