Indiana University
Freshman Summer Reading
As part of IU Bloomington’s New Student Orientation experience, all freshmen will take part in small-group discussions that center on concepts shared in these readings. These issues will return throughout the fall semester as part of Themester 2012: Good Behavior, Bad Behavior: Molecules to Morality. Themester (theme + semester), spearheaded by the College of Arts and Sciences, explores the important issues of our time through courses, public activities, and events dedicated to the theme. This article, which presents different perspectives on behavior, will be discussed during your student sessions on the first day of your New Student Orientation program. Please read this and be prepared to participate in the discussion.
Why study good and bad behavior? As you leave your high school self or other past roles behind, we invite you to explore Indiana University’s many opportunities and in doing so, explore who you are as well. Your behavior is the most visible aspect of who you are, determining the impact you will have on others and the world at large. By studying behavior in all its senses, from plants or molecules to ethics and civil discourse, you will have a chance to better understand the known and hidden influences on your own behavior, and the choices you will necessarily make. This fall’s Themester on Good Behavior, Bad Behavior: Molecules to Morality, sponsored by the College of Arts and Sciences, invites IU students to examine the choices and judgments that frame human actions in public and private. When people talk about the “behavior” of someone or something, they are quick to label this behavior as “good” or “bad.” However, the meaning of “good” and “bad” varies. The behavior of an animal is called “good” when it is well adapted. The behavior of a person is “bad” when it hurts others for selfish reasons. Eating habits are considered “good” when they promote health. The behavior of a molecule is labeled “bad” when it does not do what scientists predict. This Themester invites you to understand when and why one can draw the line between good and bad behavior.
This fall marks the fifty-seventh quadrennial United States presidential election. If you are from the U.S., this is likely the first election in which you are eligible to vote. You might pay closer attention to the political proceedings than you ever have before. If you are from abroad, you have a ring-side seat to a process you have probably viewed from afar. Coinciding with the presidential election are races for state and local office. Politics provide exaggerated examples of good behavior and bad behavior. Politicians parade their good deeds and denigrate the bad behavior of their competitors, while the press and public debate what exactly is good behavior and whether private failings are any measure of suitability for public office. The world stage brings us the 2012 Summer Olympics and inevitable questions about sportsmanship, broken rules, unfair advantages, and possible drug use. Meanwhile, the debate about human activities and their effects on the environment intensifies as weather records are broken and gas prices fluctuate. Gulf shrimp may be on the menu again, but the consequences of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico continue to unfold, as does the discussion about who behaved well and who behaved badly during the crisis. Welcome to Indiana University, where issues such as these are discussed and debated. This semester, the College of Arts and Sciences focuses on Good Behavior, Bad Behavior: Molecules to Morality.
What is a behavior? “Behavior is what a man does, not what he thinks, feels, or believes.” —Emily Dickinson “Behavior is the mirror in which everyone shows their image.” —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe A wolf grows thicker fur in the winter. A spider builds a web. A person’s heart beats faster after a scare. A plant bends toward a source of light. An athlete decides not to practice if it rains. A group of bacteria moves toward a solution of high concentration. An electron moves around its atomic orbital. Flocks of birds migrate south in a V formation. A rat avoids bitter food. Two proteins antagonize one another. A dog salivates in anticipation of a treat. A horse becomes arthritic with old age. Bees swarm. A moth changes colors in response to its background. A Venus flytrap closes on its prey. Are these all examples of behavior? Scholars of different disciplines look at questions of behavior from different perspectives. The philosopher looks at ethics, the rhetorician looks at civil discourse, the chemist looks at the behavior of molecules, and the economist looks at behavior of markets and may attempt to understand them in terms of rational actors. Scholars of art and literature might look at the motivation of character, or discuss the relevancy or worth of a work. Behavioral scientists investigate how much of human behavior can be understood in terms of mechanisms of brain and cognition.
Can you choose how to behave? “But then I sigh, and, with a piece of scripture, Tell them that God bids us do good for evil: And thus I clothe my naked villainy With odd old ends, stol’n out of holy writ; And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.” —Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Richard III, Act I, scene iii. IU Theatre production of Shakespeare’s Richard III opens October 11. The play will also be read and discussed in the Themester course ENG-L 313 Early Plays of Shakespeare: Heroes and Villains. Can you choose how to behave? For most people today, the answer is obvious: of course you can! It may not be easy to stay home and read The Great Gatsby for your freshman comp class when all your friends are headed to Assembly Hall for Midnight Madness, but it’s clearly a choice. That’s why the image of a good angel on one shoulder and a bad angel on the other is so popular. Are you going to do what your conscience tells you to do? Or are you going to give in to temptation? Nearly three-fourths of Americans today believe we are born with the ability to make this choice between good and evil. But there are lots of reasons to think they are wrong. Maybe our choices are determined by where and when we are born. That’s what sociologists study. Maybe genetics and brain chemistry deeply influence everything we do, in ways we don’t realize. That’s what scientists study.
What does it mean to call behavior good (or bad)? This is an academic and a practical question that is famously hard to answer. We know good (or bad) behavior when we see it, but exactly what do we see? We endorse good behavior, reject bad behavior, and develop elaborate systems to assess each, although we don’t always agree on which is which. As humans, we tend to think that we, of all animal species, have a monopoly on moral reasoning, but we still recognize good (adaptive) and bad (maladaptive) behavior in other animals. Biologists studying the evolution of such behaviors in animals even wonder whether human morality is also an evolved adaptive trait.
Or maybe humans are born with predetermined characters and choices. For example, the Christian doctrine of Original Sin teaches that all human beings are inclined to behave badly. Other religious traditions emphasize the tension between freedom and determinism— between the idea that humans are born with the ability to choose between different kinds of behaviors and the claim that our choices are somehow made for us, by a god, by fate, by karma. This is one way that religion, like psychology, biology, or sociology, challenges the assumption that human behaviors are freely chosen. Religion, in other words, is not just a way of influencing how people behave: religion also offers a theory of human behavior.
This semester brings the discussion of behavior and its evaluation to the forefront. You have the opportunity to participate in courses and activities that will discuss the ways in which behavior is evaluated (good-bad, ethicalunethical, adaptive-maladaptive, usefuluseless) and how these concepts apply to people, animals, and other living organisms, societies, machines, or the dynamical properties of nonliving matter.
Constance Furey, Department of Religious Studies. Dr. Furey will teach Themester course REL-A 202 Original Sin.
When put to the test, will you behave well or badly? “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” —Aristotle Type “people walk past” into Google’s search box and the suggested completions include “Chinese girl,” “as woman is attacked,” and “man dying.” The “Chinese girl” refers to a toddler in southern China who was left to die in October 2011 after a hit-and-run accident. The dying man was Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax, who bled to death in New York in April 2010 after being stabbed while defending a woman from a knife attack. Dozens of people walked by—one even slowing just long enough to take a picture with his camera phone. You might like to think that you would have stopped to help, but the odds are that had you been a passerby, you would have behaved just like everyone else. Our ideas of good and bad behavior don’t always match our deeds. So why is that? Can the ethical theories of philosophers offer insight? Was Aristotle right that the path to virtue requires practice? Do psychologists or evolutionary biologists offer better ideas about the sources of good and bad behavior? Colin Allen, Departments of Cognitive Science and History and Philosophy of Science. Dr. Allen will teach Themester course COGS-Q 101 Introduction to Cognitive Science.
What goes on in people’s heads that leads to good or bad behavior? “I don’t know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life—anybody’s life; my life. All he’d wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die.” —Blade Runner, original theatrical release (Ridley Scott, 1982); the later director’s cut will be shown as part of the Themester film series. Psychology is the study of behavior, and cognitive science investigates the thinking—by humans, other animals, even machines—that leads to behavior. IU is a world leader in these areas, with our faculty asking and answering exciting, important questions at the core of this year’s Themester, including:
What are the differences between people, and the situations they find themselves in, that lead to bad or good behavior? This is a central focus of clinical psychology, which often emphasizes how to help people overcome mental problems, and of positive psychology, which promotes happiness and well-being. Can we figure out how a person is able to make ethical decisions, and then program a robot to behave ethically as well—for instance, on a battlefield? Researchers in moral psychology, along with cognitive scientists in philosophy, robotics, and artificial intelligence, consider such questions. Can our evolved behavioral tendencies be bad? For instance, we have innate preferences for sweet and fatty foods, which by themselves led to survival advantages for our ancestors. But in today’s world, where sugar and fat are much easier to come by, those preferences can easily lead to unhealthy behaviors. Evolutionary psychology and health psychology, along with food studies, anthropology, and nutrition science, look at these issues. How can we make good decisions? Do we have to follow the standard rules of rationality, gathering as much information as we can and thinking deeply about it? Or can we take shortcuts that will get us to good decisions more quickly? Would such cognitive shortcuts be acceptable for doctors or judges to use? These challenges are tackled in cognitive and social psychology and economics.
How can we change our environment to help us behave better? Because we’re unaware of many of the choices we make, it is often possible to subtly alter our surroundings to nudge us in good directions—for instance, making organ donation the default on a state’s drivers’ licenses greatly increases the rate of donation. This is an example of where the realms of psychology, economics, and political science meet.
However, cowbirds are brood parasites—like cuckoos, they lay their eggs in the nests of other species. In fact, cowbird eggs have been found in nests of over 200 other bird species. By engaging in this behavior, cowbird parents are able to avoid having to invest in parental care of their own offspring. Instead, young cowbirds are fed by the unwitting host parents, often at the expense of their own young.
Peter Todd, Departments of Cognitive Science, Informatics, and Psychological and Brain Sciences. Dr. Todd will teach Themester class HON-H 241 Food for Thought: The Cognitive Science of Eating.
Several species engage in what can be called deceptive behaviors to minimize the chances of being killed by predators. For example some birds, including plovers and waders, feign injury—a “broken wing” display—and lead predators away from their nests. Other animals, including opossums, snakes, and even some insect species, display thanatosis, feigning death in order to avoid drawing unwanted attention. “Playing possum” increases the chance for survival.
Do fiction, drama, and art represent bad behavior more often than good? Nothing inspires the imagination more than bad behavior. Whereas schools, religious institutions, and political bodies all promote good behavior, the world of fiction is full of bad behavior. Certainly, one might suggest that fiction displays bad forms of behavior as a warning example. However, why is it that bad behavior fascinates spectators and readers so much? Is the world of the imagination and of fiction the place where all suppressed wishes reside? Is it that fiction needs to be a counter-world in which our standards do not apply? Or is it because bad behavior is the behavior that we ultimately cannot understand and rationalize?
While all these behaviors differ in their details among the various species, as with much of human behavior, they could be ascribed labels as “good,” “bad,” “helpful,” “altruistic,” “sneaky,” or “deceptive.” But are they really? In truth, all of these behaviors are also highly adaptive responses that likely evolved to enhance reproductive fitness in the individuals that display them. Can the concepts of good and bad behavior, at least how we think about them in humans, be applied to these behaviors, and others like them? Or are we better off considering them with respect to their adaptive utility, divorced from any moral judgments?
Fritz Breithaupt, Department of Germanic Studies. Dr. Breithaupt will teach Themester course HON-H 226 Literature of Notorious Crimes.
Greg Demas, Department of Biology and the Center for the Integrative Study of Animal Behavior. Dr. Demas will teach Themester course BIOL-Z 466 Endocrinology.
Is there good and bad behavior in the animal world?
Is there such a thing as the neutrality of science? Are scientific discoveries exempt from classification into categories of good and bad?
“And what haunts me, is that in all the faces of all the bears that Treadwell ever filmed, I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy. I see only the overwhelming indifference of nature. To me, there is no such thing as a secret world of the bears. And this blank stare speaks only of a half-bored interest in food. But for Timothy Treadwell, this bear was a friend, a savior.” —Werner Herzog, director of Grizzly Man. Herzog’s documentary will be shown as part of the Themester film series. Vervet monkeys, native to Africa, rely on a variety of calls to communicate with each other during social interactions such as grooming, or to warn of approaching predators. They produce different alarm calls for different predators. By producing these calls, they risk drawing the predator’s attention to themselves, but because monkeys in a group tend to be relatives, perhaps the benefits to kin outweigh the potential risk to the individual’s life. Brown-headed cowbirds are small songbirds native to North America and found year-round in Indiana. Like all birds, female cowbirds lay eggs during the spring/summer breeding season.
“The idea that chemical processes can be either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is counter to the wisdom of modern science, as chemical processes themselves are not thought to be moral agents. However, as seen in the modern era, the ways in which chemistry and technology are used by society can impart good and bad outcomes.” —Sara Skrabalak, Department of Chemistry. Dr. Skrabalak will teach Themester class CHEM-C 100 World of Chemistry. In the early 1940s, Arthur Galston was a graduate student in botany at the University of Illinois. In his thesis, he reported that a synthetic chemical could increase the rate of flowering in plants, enabling crops to be grown in colder climates. He also found that when the chemical was applied at higher concentrations, it was extremely toxic, causing the leaves of the plant to fall off.
Twenty years later, North Vietnamese soldiers were puzzled…usually American planes dropped bombs. What was the white powder falling from the sky, releasing a garlic odor, burning their eyes, and covering everything? A few weeks later, they began to understand the terrible power of the strange fog-like bombs. The trees died, the grass died, and there was no longer any foliage left for camouflage and cover. Months to years later, those exposed developed muscular and skeletal disorders as severe as paralysis. Decades later, children and grandchildren are showing high rates of birth defects and cancer. Following the war, Galston learned that military researchers had used his thesis to aid in the development of powerful herbicides to destroy enemy crops as well as the forest concealing troop movements and supply lines. The most widely used was Agent Orange, named for the color of the stripe on the 55-gallon drum used to store the chemicals. The U.S. military sprayed more than 50,000 tons of this herbicide in Vietnam, impacting millions of people. Galston later wrote, “I used to think that one could avoid involvement in the anti-social consequences of science simply by not working on any project that might be turned to evil or destructive ends. I have learned that things are not that simple. … The only recourse is for a scientist to remain involved with it to the end.”
Fundamental physical and chemical behavior is governed by a set of laws and the advancement of knowledge is generally not considered to be good or bad. In this context, science is not responsible for its applications, and even less for their subsequent use. Galston’s story, however, illustrates the transformation of scientific discovery into an application that raises strong moral opposition. As scientific progress becomes increasingly fundamental to society, it is constantly challenging and even at odds with long-held beliefs and values. In the 1950s and ’60s, ethical discussions mainly focused on physics and engineering of weapons; there was a shift to an environmental focus in the 1970s and ’80s. Today many ethical issues deal with progress in the field of biology and its consequences for society (genetic engineering, stem cells, and cloning). Jill Robinson, Department of Chemistry. Dr. Robinson will teach Themester course CHEM-G 209 Ethics in Science.
Recommended Reading
we enjoy fiction because in fiction, the bad guys usually get what they deserve. And so do the free riders, who abuse the social system. As social beings, Flesch suggests, we care deeply for the good or bad behavior of our neighbors since we all make sacrifices for the common good. Fiction, in a word, is about punishing bad behavior.
The following selections offer perspectives for further exploration and discussion. The Themester advisory committee offers these questions to consider as you read. •
Fyodor Dostoevsky, “The Dream of a Ridiculous Man,” in The Gambler and Other Stories (New York: Penguin Books, 2010).
Why is the narrator ridiculous, by his own account? What effect does the devastation of paradise have on the narrator?
•
Flannery O’Connor, “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” in A Good Man is Hard to Find and Other Stories (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992).
What does the grandmother mean by a “good man”? What are other possible meanings of “good”? What is the significance of the discussion of Jesus? Was he a good man?
•
William Flesch, Comeuppance: Costly Signaling, Altruistic Punishment, and Other Biological Components of Fiction (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).
Why is it that we like fiction so much? Why do most of us spend hours every day participating in all kinds of storytelling, including gossip? William Flesch provides a thought-provoking answer. He suggests that
Is this perspective on fiction too simplistic? What about the empathy we have for characters? Isn’t fiction about the imagination? Or is Flesch right?
•
Rebecca Skloot, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (New York: Crown Publishers, 2010).
“You know what is a myth?” Bobette snapped from the recliner. “Everybody always saying Henrietta Lacks donated these cells. She didn’t donate anything. They took them and didn’t ask.” She inhaled a deep breath to calm herself. “What really would upset Henrietta is the fact that Dr. Gey never told the family anything—we didn’t know nothing about those cells and he didn’t care. That just rubbed us the wrong way. I just keep asking everybody, ‘Why didn’t they say anything to the family?’ They knew how to contact us.” From The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot (2010). The Office of Women’s Affairs will host Lacks’s son, David Lacks, who will discuss his mother’s contribution to the world and the effect on his family.
Recommended Viewing • Match Point. DVD. Directed by Woody Allen. (Universal City, CA: DreamWorks Video, 2006). In a twist on the biblical story of Job, this is a story about an unrighteous man who is rewarded—a man who is lucky without being good. What are the consequences of the main character’s immoral acts? Does anything in the film challenge his contention that we live in a world where everything comes down to “blind chance” rather than “design”? • Groundhog Day. DVD. Directed by Harold Ramis. (Culver City, CA: Columbia Pictures, 1993). Some philosophical schools and religious traditions (Stoic and Buddhist, for example) say that the solution to the problem of acquiring happiness is to resign oneself to fate and limit one’s desires. What was the solution for Phil, the main character in Groundhog Day?
It is estimated that scientists have cultured 20 tons of Henrietta Lacks’s cells and more than 11,000 patents have resulted. If tissue samples are collected for the purposes of research, not to treat the patient’s cancer, was it wrong for the doctor to remove the samples? Does the potential of benefit for mankind outweigh the drawbacks of removing tissues from a person without their consent or knowledge? What do you think is more important—a person’s personal rights over their own tissue, or contributing to science and research for the benefit of all humankind? How do you feel about knowing that you still do not have total control over your body once you go to see a doctor? If you discovered that tissue routinely removed from your body at some point in the past went on to significantly benefit science and research, would you feel that you should somehow be compensated? The book gives examples of several medical breakthroughs discovered through the use of HeLa cells. What are some of these discoveries? Have your attitudes or ideas toward medical research changed in any way due to reading this book? Ownership of genetic material is an unresolved issue. Many human genes have been patented and a battle is currently being fought through the U.S. courts between doctors and a biotech company owning the patents for genes used in breast cancer research screening. What are your thoughts about research and patents in this now “profit making” industry?
Suggestions for Additional Reading • Robert Sapolsky, A Primate’s Memoir (New York: Scribner, 2001). • Konrad Lorenz, King Solomon’s Ring: New Light on Animal Ways (New York: Crowell, 1952). • Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson, Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior (New York: Scribner, 2005). • Frans de Waal, Primates and Philosophers (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006).
Themester Courses at the 100 and 200 level Chemistry
English
• CHEM-C 100 World of Chemistry • CHEM-G 209 Ethics in Science
• ENG-L 240 Literature and Public Life: Confession Culture
College Critical Approaches • COLL-C 103 Morality, Literature, and Film: What’s “Good” about “Good Books” and “Good Movies”? • COLL-C 103 Pleasure, Pain, and Peak Oil • COLL-C 104 Death Penalty in America • COLL-C 105 When Good Science Goes Bad
Communication and Culture • CMCL-C 121 Public Speaking—Out of a Clear Blue Sky: Speaking in the Wake of Unforeseen Events • CMCL-C 121 Public Speaking—Poisonous Potions, Charming Curses, and the Dark Arts: Harry Potter and the Magics of Public Speaking • CMCL-C 121 Public Speaking—Breaking the Law, Fixing Society: Civil Disobedience, Public Speaking, and Democracy
Cognitive Science • COGS-Q 101 Introduction to Cognitive Science
Folklore & Ethnomusicology • FOLK-F 210 Myth, Legend, and Popular Science
Near Eastern Languages and Cultures • NELC-N 204 Good and Evil in Ancient Egypt
Philosophy • PHIL-P 140 Introduction to Ethics
Religious Studies • REL-R 170 Religion, Ethics, and Public Life • REL-A 202 Original Sin
Hutton Honors • • • • •
HON-H 226 Literature of Notorious Crimes HON-H 233 Interdisciplinary History of Empathy HON-H 234 Understanding Antisemitism HON-H 241 Food for Thought: The Cognitive Science of Eating HON-H 242 Animal Ethics
More courses can be found at http://themester.indiana.edu/curriculum.shtml.
Discussion Questions 1. A dog pulls another injured dog from a busy highway1 and a wild stallion helps a drowning filly escape a raging river.2 A man jumps onto the subway tracks to save a stranger.3 Instinct, compassion, or something else? 2. Is there such a thing as “innate” behavior (i.e., nature), or are behavioral responses a product of one’s environment (i.e., nurture)? Is the dichotomy of nature vs. nurture still useful, or has it outlived its utility? 3. Scientists often proclaim the neutrality of science. Is this a valid claim? Some say the decision to study one thing rather than another inevitably involves ethical values. Do you agree or disagree with this position?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgjyhKN_35g http://www.azcentral.com/video/1549461481001 3 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/nyregion/26train.html 1 2
4. What obligations do scientists have to educate the public about potentially negative consequences of scientific discoveries? 5. Have you been in a situation where you’ve witnessed good (or, at least, acceptable) behavior turning to bad? What did you do? At what point did the behavior cross the line?