Jump to content

Turley's Reference: Ervin Staub


Calm

Recommended Posts

For those who saw Richard Turley's MMM presentation and those who didn't, he examined the MMM using the sociopsychological POV primarily based on what I believe is (I guessed at the spelling, someone correct me if I'm wrong) Ervin Staub's theory.

I found this listing for one of Staub's works: The Psychology of Good and Evil. It contains short segments to entice people to purchase the book. IIRC, Turley referred to the article Steps Along a Continuum of Destruction. He presented a half dozen or so conditions that contribute to the likelihood of mass murder.

Looks to be an interesting read.

Is anyone aware of anything else that might be useful in learning more of Staub's work, in particular a listing of the conditions spoken of?

Link to comment

For those who saw Richard Turley's MMM presentation and those who didn't, he examined the MMM using the sociopsychological POV primarily based on what I believe is (I guessed at the spelling, someone correct me if I'm wrong) Ervin Staub's theory.

I found this listing for one of Staub's works: The Psychology of Good and Evil. It contains short segments to entice people to purchase the book. IIRC, Turley referred to the article Steps Along a Continuum of Destruction. He presented a half dozen or so conditions that contribute to the likelihood of mass murder.

Looks to be an interesting read.

Is anyone aware of anything else that might be useful in learning more of Staub's work, in particular a listing of the conditions spoken of?

Thanks for this, calmoriah.

It saves me the trouble of e-mailing Brother Turley.

Link to comment

Scott, did you take note of the conditions? If you did, how about a brief phrase on each to refresh my memory.

Be happy to do that.

At the moment, though, I'm feverishly trying to digest and summarize Turley's (and other speakers') presentations for my CN piece. When the pressure's off I'll be in a better position to come back here and answer your request. Can you wait a day or two?

Link to comment

Be happy to do that.

At the moment, though, I'm feverishly trying to digest and summarize Turley's (and other speakers') presentations for my CN piece. When the pressure's off I'll be in a better position to come back here and answer your request. Can you wait a day or two?

Definitely, especially since my wee grandson is coming over to play and it's so much more interesting to play with him than you old stuffed shirts. :P

Ack! At least I thought he did. Where did I see that?

Looks like TW missed that presentation since he states that Craig Foster started off day 2 and it was Turley who did so, IIRC.

Link to comment

Here is a link to the other book Juliann mentioned for anyone interested:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/cata...n=9780521422147

This looks like the one to get for the best info:

He sketches a conceptual framework for the many influences on one group's desire to harm another: cultural and social patterns predisposing to violence, historical circumstances resulting in persistent life problems, and needs and modes of adaptation arising from the interaction of these influences. Such notions as cultural stereotyping and devaluation, societal self-concept, moral exclusion, the need for connection, authority orientation, personal and group goals, "better world" ideologies, justification, and moral equilibrium find a place in his analysis, and he addresses the relevant evidence from the behavioral sciences.

The Table of Contents seems to me to give a good overview of what likely conditions Turley referenced to anyone semifamiliar with this stuff, btw.

Link to comment

Yes! But when will the rest of us get to read it!?!

I was ambushed by real life that morning and had to fight knife and fang to get to the Conference and missed that presentation!

If I heard and remember correctly, he is putting some final touches on the footnotes and then it may be available somehow (don't know the particulars).

Here is a link to the other book Juliann mentioned for anyone interested:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/cata...n=9780521422147

He sketches a conceptual framework for the many influences on one group's desire to harm another: cultural and social patterns predisposing to violence, historical circumstances resulting in persistent life problems, and needs and modes of adaptation arising from the interaction of these influences. Such notions as cultural stereotyping and devaluation, societal self-concept, moral exclusion, the need for connection, authority orientation, personal and group goals, "better world" ideologies, justification, and moral equilibrium find a place in his analysis, and he addresses the relevant evidence from the behavioral sciences.

I think use of "euphemisms" was another factor in the model and that occurred in Cedar City.

Link to comment

This was an excellent explanation of why good people can do such evil things. It certainly explains a lot not only about MMM but many other events in history.

Link to comment

And interestingly, nothing in Staub's model would support Talibachman's claim of missionaires that would be willing to kill if their MPs only said the word. Well, maybe a few factors, like obedience and sparse living conditions/hardships, but not much else. And terrorism doesn't usually fit the bill either, I would guess but sometimes might.

Link to comment

Turley made the point there is no such thing as blind obedience: every person has choice and accountability. This is especially interesting in light of anti-Mo statements that Mormons blindly follow their leaders.

Link to comment

Turley made the point there is no such thing as blind obedience: every person has choice and accountability. This is especially interesting in light of anti-Mo statements that Mormons blindly follow their leaders.

Or that we somehow give people a wave off of accepting responsibility just because a leader tells them to do something.

These have always bewildered me considering the huge emphasis we put on accountability and agency in our doctrine. Coupled with personal revelation, the relying solely on the excuse "I was following orders" just doesn't make it with our doctrine.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...