From today’s NYTimes: He Who Cast the First Stone Probably Didn’t

Retaliation is a normal human impulse…

After all, it is wrong to punch anyone except a puncher, and our language even has special words — like “retaliation” and “retribution” and “revenge” — whose common prefix is meant to remind us that a punch thrown second is legally and morally different than a punch thrown first.

But responding out of proportion is perceived (by an outside observer) to be wrong.

If the first principle of legitimate punching is that punches must be even-numbered, the second principle is that an even-numbered punch may be no more forceful than the odd-numbered punch that preceded it. Legitimate retribution is meant to restore balance, and thus an eye for an eye is fair, but an eye for an eyelash is not. When the European Union condemned Israel for bombing Lebanon in retaliation for the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, it did not question Israel’s right to respond, but rather, its “disproportionate use of force.” It is O.K. to hit back, just not too hard.

Problem is, escalation often *feels* like a response in-kind to the person responding.

The researcher began the game by exerting a fixed amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. The first volunteer was then asked to exert precisely the same amount of pressure on the second volunteer’s finger. The second volunteer was then asked to exert the same amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. And so on. The two volunteers took turns applying equal amounts of pressure to each other’s fingers while the researchers measured the actual amount of pressure they applied.

The results were striking. Although volunteers tried to respond to each other’s touches with equal force, they typically responded with about 40 percent more force than they had just experienced. Each time a volunteer was touched, he touched back harder, which led the other volunteer to touch back even harder. What began as a game of soft touches quickly became a game of moderate pokes and then hard prods, even though both volunteers were doing their level best to respond in kind.

Each volunteer was convinced that he was responding with equal force and that for some reason the other volunteer was escalating. Neither realized that the escalation was the natural byproduct of a neurological quirk that causes the pain we receive to seem more painful than the pain we produce, so we usually give more pain than we have received.

(emphasis added)

Owwww, quit it.


2 Responses to “Is conflict escalation inate?”  

  1. 1 Mike

    Yes, conflict escalation is innate. It is human nature. The Times’ article is correct in its examination of the problem we have discerning “who started it” and what the motive of our combatant is.

    Many people have criticized Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount for proclaiming “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, give him your left also.” It seems Jesus is telling us to roll over and be a doormat. But that isn’t the whole teaching. He uses that to say, “And love those who hate you. For when you do, you will heap burning coals on his head.” The picture is poignant. In that culture, one older child was often given the job of collecting coals from a communal fire and distributing them to homes. They would often carry them on their head. This is the picture Jesus uses.

    When you heap coals on someone’s head, you make them much more careful about what they’re doing. They have to concentrate immensely. When you show love to someone who hurts you, they have to stop and notice what you’re doing. If you retaliate, which they expect, they are ready to keep hurting you without taking much time to think about where it will lead.

    This is one of the key themes of Hamlet. Is Hamlet correct in his dealings with “something rotten in the State of Denmark”? Does his revenge do anything beyond extending out the bitterness and hatred? Does his angry, veangeful heart create peace for him or others around him - see how he treated Ophelia. “Get thee to a nunnery” indeed! The guy was a hate-filled moron.

  2. 2 Allison

    Great comments, Mike!

    I’d never thought about the “coals of fire on his head” that way — I’d assumed it just meant you made them look like an idiot (BURN!). Making them stop, think twice, and regain their balance…that makes more sense in how humans truly behave.

    Amazing what a little cultural context can do for understanding.