Statistics, and Psychology Paper

MD2Assgn Welling T

July 6, 2019

Dr. JESSICA HOLMES

Cross Cultural Psychology

When you take the subject of cross-cultural psychology and of course the role of females, problems by default come up. By an examination of the following categories Patriarchal Societies, Hurt feelings, Serial Killers, Cross Cultural, Individualism, Collectivism, and Actions groupings one can come up with solutions. Through a thorough examination of the evidnece from the well established behavior patterns the three solutions presented in this paper will lay out the best ways to identify the problems in each culture, identify how to find the rules and regulations of each culture, and to find ways to merge the A, B, C rules of acceptable order categories of each culture into a more cohesive unit. Most of the troublemakers have no interest in the merging cultures, they have an interest in being nasty and violent with new victims to be violent against.

Patriarchal Societies

Most humans have formed into some type of a patriarchal culture from very light where the division of labor is 51/49%. In those type of societies, females are just shy of equal rights to men. However, around the world, this is a rather rare structure. Most cultures are about 75/25% patriarchal, which means men rule and have domination over females in a 75/25% split. Depending on a great deal of diverse interactions depends on if females in said culture have rights at all.

Then there are the what can be considered to be “bad cultures” where females have either very few if any rights at all. In those cultures, the largest problem is, males are and or feel so threatened by females that females are treated equal to slaves and on occasion a bit worse than slaves.

In those types of cultures, the largest issue is how much misogyny does the culture have? Some cultures with rather strong 75/25% not all of them are based on misogyny. Some are just so heavily male dominated, and it has been that way for so long that it is just male dominance not necessarily hatred of females.

In the cultures with a 75/25% the torturing and eventually killing of females is not as common. However, in heavily misogynistic cultures it is a common thing for the culture to injure, torture, and kill females. In such culture’s females are perceived to have a huge amount of bad behavior traits which causes the insecure men to harm them, and eventually build up to killing them. Many of those cultures in the west as opposed to Asia east use the concepts of the original sin committed by Eve as a theocratic excuse to punish and even murder females. In some ways those misogynistic cultures act and operate based on the theocratic and cognitive dissonance rule that if they punish females who show “strength” and or who show a type of behavior pattern where the male leaders feel their power base is threatened the solution in those cultures is to punish the “Eve” like females to win back gods favor. Eve threatened the power of god regarding the tree he placed in the center of the Garden of Eden and informed both Adam and Eve “do not eat the fruit of that tree”. At least that is how it is depicted and described in the first several pages of the Jewish holy book ,the Torah, specifically the book of Genesis, which is the basis and foundation of the Old Testament portion of the holy bible. Eve commits what has been considered to be “original sin”. In that she and her husband Adam are removed from paradise/the Garden of Eden and forced to walk the earth. Cultures that are based on those ideals of that book have taken on the responsibilities that when things in their culture go wrong, god is sending them a message that they need to find the stereotypical “Eve’s” in their midst and punish them. Sometimes the punishments are light, other times heavy, and on occasion punishments are full on murder, occasionally mass murder. Other cultures commit similar acts but do not use the “bible” and “Eve’s original sin” as an excuse, they simply perform the violence, murder, mass murder for other cultural reasons. But the end result is similar acts of violence.

Hurt Feelings

The largest issue of the above patriarchal cultural structure when boiled down to its most basic elements are that the men in the culture in basic have hurt feelings about being rejected by females they are attracted to.

In the wild, some animals when they meet up and it is breeding season, there is very little choice in the matter. If a male comes across a female, unless she can fight him off, he simply mounts her, does his thing, and continues his solitary lifestyle.

In humans this “I see, I want, I take, I move on” is still very much hard wired into some human males. This behavior pattern in some men and some cultures is still very hard and active. The men involved seem to think that females are simply present as a thing to mate with and move onto the next thing to mate with. With very little if any emotional interaction.

The key concept is “emotional interactions”, most men have various levels of emotional interactions. From very little emotion to overwhelming emotion.

These find, mate, move on the object of their momentary desire’s feelings have nothing to do with the events in question. However, their thoughts, feelings, emotions are virtually the only thing which matters. When the object of desire rejects them, their feelings are so hurt they in general have no idea how to process the rejection.

This is in a way the basis of how in interviews with various serial killers and politicians who have been convicted of crimes against humanity the person feels. Males or females it makes little difference, they are so afraid they must strike violence against any and all who threatened their power. Serial killers to prevent the fighting against will subdue their victims in whatever way the killer feels empowered by. Which allows the killer to feel a sense of domination and control over the victim. Sometimes victims are chosen randomly, sometimes the victims fulfil some deeply twisted fantasy concept for the killer. Some female from their past that hurt their feelings, be that a mother figure, teacher, first love, etc., if they run across someone that resembles that type of person in their future, they react violently. Instead of hurting the actual object of their anger, they take their anger out on an unsuspecting victim to reclaim their power over the person who hurt them.

Self-admitted this is the case of the serial killer Dennis Rader, his victims of choice were pretend “upper class females” in Kansas, who in his mind were actually in private dirty females who in his cognitive dissonance mind in public they appeared to be prim and proper, but in their private lives they were sexual deviates. Which was in some way for his twisted mind presented in the form of most if not all of his victims “smoked”. Several as he self-described them (during his testimony in court right before sentencing) as being at least somewhat willing to be violated. He stated after he claimed dominance over the situation, he would say “relax”. He then describes them as relaxing by smoking a cigarette, then saying “ok let us get this over with”. His description was he needed to simply sexually violate them e.g. rape. But that was only to get them to relax and his trigger was to get them to smoke. After the cigarette, he would then get into position, but instead of the act, he would strangle them to death, then perform other acts upon the dead body. He convinced them in the start that “let me violate you, and everything will be ok”. In some type of a meaning of “if you let me, I will let you live.” When the whole time, his intent was to get them to relax so he could kill them then violate the dead body.

Statistics have shown when lots of random violence in small pockets have began to occur, it is the potential “serial killers” in the community who are trying to build up the emotional courage to actually kill their intended victims. Serial killers do not start out killing their victims, there is a recognized build up process. Said build up process is (as example in the study presented) present when cultures begin to merge.

How this affects the violence in a community. Serial Killers, whether they are politicians or individuals operating in each community, an example is Sharia law they execute several to dozens and dozens of “deviant” males and females a year. Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. All trying to use the rules they think god wrote down to punish the descendants of Eve and her eating of the apple to appease some god to observe some type of theocratic concept. Which is literally no different than the actions done at the Salem Witch Trials. Same actions just different cognitive dissonance packaging. The compulsion to punish those who live their lives by rules you and or your community do not like and or cannot function with and or around becomes the psychological issue.

How do the rules and regulations of each culture merge when two or more cultures by situational example are forced together. The rules and regulations of each culture do not exactly get along perfectly. When x culture breaks the rules of y culture, the individuals involved and, of course, the lone wolves of said culture become compelled to act. Those actions usually end up in violence. Sometimes light violence, in harsher customer service, prejudice, verbal violence, up to and through physical violence leading to death.

Many serial violent people not only have a recognized and studied build up process, they also have a stressor build up process. This concept has been presented in 1000s of peer review papers, it is such a common psychological concept that in crime drama movies and tv shows it is not outside the realm of possibilities said “what was the stressor” which the fictionalized character was presented that triggered the killer to go look for a victim. Practically every episode of “Mindhunters” on Netflix has this as a central theme for why the killer performed the action. Something happened and the killer snapped. One solution to the violence when communities begin to merge is the want to be serial killers are stressed and are using the “outsiders” to express their wants, needs, desires to perform said serial killing actions. It is rough individuals not the community itself which is the problem. Find the rough in training serial killers, remove them as a threat and the merging of cultures can proceed easier.

Cross Cultural

Every culture on earth has a specific set of rules from which they operate. Each culture that operates based on those rules usually have to deal with other cultures which operate based on other sets of rules and regulations. The differences can and often does lead to intercultural conflicts. Depending on a wide range of situations, sometimes it is only a mild resentment regarding those differences, other times those differences result in open hostilities which can and often lead to war.

Each culture becomes compelled to in effect force the other culture to either give up their rules and regulations and or the aim is to destroy the other culture entirely. Removing the offending rules and regulations which are so different the cultures cannot both individually and collectively get past the differences. There becomes no “live and let live” structure involved. It becomes “we must destroy, their culture because their rules of order are simply unacceptable to us in all ways, shapes, and forms”. Identify the “nasty” community leaders encouraging the violence, and you very likely have found either a serial killer and or someone who is building up to become a serial killer. This has been such a common theme in entertainment that the brothers Grimm wrote about a serial killer in training “Gaston” in the fictionalized story “Beauty and the Beast”.

Individualism

Individualism is a psychological construct which provides that either groups and or individuals can and will act according to their own free will. Their wants, needs, and desires will come to the surface and associated behavior patterns will occur.

The balance between individualism and collectivism; this balance is difficult for strong people to maintain. The stronger a culture is with their rules and regulations, the more they want to follow the collective. However, depending on the rules of the culture, some people have needs, wants, desires, etc. which are outside what the culture they are connected with are willing to give each individual. So, when said happens, a power dynamic occurs between the person trying to suppress their wants, needs, desires, etc. that are not provided by the culture they live in. That suppression will come out and force the persons needs to be met. The stronger the suppression the more unconscious and violent the behaviors are from the individual to be able to have their needs met. Most of the time they are entirely unconscious of why they are doing what they are doing. They know they want something but have no idea what that something is. They just have to go and get it, or a close enough equivalency.

Some of the ways in which individual people perceive the role of females is another issue when it comes to the applications of what each person will do. If the culture has a positive perception regarding females, but some individuals have between a not good perspective up to and through as bad a view on females as possible. Their behavior patterns will stick out from the collective. The exact opposite is also true. If the perspective of females in the culture’s collectiveness is harsh to violent, but individuals have a much better to even a really nice perception of females their actions will stick out just as hard. Example fathers of daughters in extremely rigid and violent patriarchal cultures, tend to make decisions about the future of their daughters that are contradictory to the culture’s collectivism behaviors. Many fathers living under the rules of Sharia Law who have said individualism bent will send their daughters out of the influence of said rules in order to avoid the violence when their daughters turn out to be more independent than the collectivism of the culture will allow. The in-effect C, the individual has no problem with their actions but the culture perceives their actions as clearly in the C category of unacceptable in any way, shape, or form.

Collectivism

Collectivism comes from what academics has determined is a more primitive side of our brains. We are primates after all, but even more basic we are mammals who function better in packs. The individual wants, needs, desires are suppressed in order to have a stronger collective. Which most of the time said collective is a culture which creates rules and regulations which govern both the individual and the group to achieve as many people’s needs as possible.

This system breaks down when introduced to an outside group of people acting from both an individual standpoint and a collectivism structure are in some way forced to merge. Either group can make decisions which the individual’s in both cultures might or might want to accept.

When a culture is forced to interact with different cultures, some people and smaller groups will have a collectivism compulsion regarding acting individually and in even smaller groups to benefit the group/culture as a whole. Hence the looking for the architype Gaston who is using the merging of cultures to build up the nerve to go on a series of violent actions, leading up to killing. Identify the Gaston’s early will remove huge problems in the successful merging faster and easier. Hence small one on one or one on a couple violence begins to happen. It boils down to collectivism in most cases subconscious behavior patterns, where an individual will want, need, desire someone or a small group of people from different cultures to “act right” or in other words to follow the rules of the dominant culture. Rules which are usually not obvious.

How to solve this problem.

Once the Gaston’s have been identified and their deviant behaviors have been either dealt with, or in some way legally dealt with, then the real solutions can be worked on.

The real solutions are to take the following formulas of identifying exactly what each cultures A good rules, B grey rules, and C no way is that allowed rules of acceptable order are. Have each culture specifically identify what actions are A, B, and C then work to rebuild those rules per each culture. Why are the enumerable A, B, and C categories that exact way. Do, redo, and redo again a cross examination of what the rules are to merge successfully. Just keep doing this observance of the rules of order and find out how to merge.

Last suggestion, for those individuals in the culture who simply cannot get past the culture x demands that action to be in category A and or B, when those individuals have to place action 1 in category C. Point out that they have their own action 1 they think is perfectly ok in A and or B and the other culture cannot be wavered regarding that action 1 is absolutely in category C. It comes down to “you do your 1 action, just keep it to yourself. I will do my 1 action and keep it out of your face”. The individuals who cannot allow the other culture to perform (a reasonable action 1, which is not based on assault and or coming a crime against humanity) action 1, they need to be examined for a background of violence. Is this person or this group being obstinate for a cover to get away with other hidden crimes.

Work from a how do we work together; what are our similarities, exactly what are each cultures A, B, and C rules of acceptable order. Group A is what does everyone (or at least most people) agree are the correct behavior patterns, B are gray area but mostly still acceptable patterns, C are unacceptable behavior patterns in most ways. When two or more cultures merge, each cultures A, B, C lists are not going to match perfectly. However, being able to come to an understanding of what each cultures rules are is the key to being able to find common ground. Can they collectively create a new list of A, B, and C behavior patterns.

Actions A versus B

In most cultures there is a set of actions which are the public face of something or someone. Those actions and behaviors are A, example in the American south you have the phrase “Bless your heart”. It means “wow are you stupid, but you do not have negative intent behind yoru stupidity, so your dumb actions do not need to be punished.”. A phrase means B translation. Most cultures have an A and B differential. Those differences when it comes to cross cultural psychology can and often do lead to rather intense problems.

Group A B C

Further, every group of humans has decided upon in some way, shape, or form of the 3 groups of actions. A group of actions is fine and dandy, B group of actions is neutral but frowned upon, C group of actions is in almost all ways not acceptable.

The Conflict

How to deal with the conflict and to bring it to a reasonable temporary solution. Examine the above sociological and psychology structures, interview the participants and the events. Determine what and where each person sits in each category.

Then help them to see what the actual problems are and what the actual similarities are. Work to merge the two cultures both individually and group rules of acceptable order into a more cohesive arrangement.

conclusion

Reference

Amerigo Vespucci: Retrofitting of propulsion and generation systems on the italian training’s tall ship. (2014). 2014 International Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion, Power Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion (SPEEDAM), 2014 International Symposium On, 319. https://doi-

Baker, J. O., Cañarte, D., & Day, L. E. (2018). Race, Xenophobia, and Punitiveness Among the American Public. Sociological Quarterly, 59(3), 363–383. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/00380253.2018.1479202

Barnes, K. M., Whiffin, A. L., & Bulling, M. T. (2019). A preliminary study on the antibacterial activity and insect repellent properties of embalming fluids from the 18th Dynasty (1550–1292 BCE) in ancient Egypt. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 25, 600–609. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.05.032

Bassett, S. (2011). Anglo-Saxon Fortifications in Western Mercia. Midland History, 36(1), 1. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edo&AN=59628813&site=eds-live&scope=site

Brenner, R. (2010). Our muddled masses: America’s immigration policy reflects a paradox, says economist Reuven Brenner: hospitality and xenophobia, side by side. First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, (199), 37. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgea&AN=edsgcl.215060443&site=eds-live&scope=site

Halloran, K. (2016). The War for Mercia, 942-943. Midland History, 41(1), 96. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edo&AN=116265823&site=eds-live&scope=site

Lowerre, A. (2010). The Earles of Mercia: Lordship and Power in Late Anglo-Saxon England. American Historical Review, (1), 269. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgea&AN=edsgcl.221715885&site=eds-live&scope=site

McCall, G. J., & Resick, P. A. (2003). A pilot study of PTSD symptoms among Kalahari Bushmen. Journal Of Traumatic Stress, 16(5), 445–450. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mnh&AN=14584628&site=eds-live&scope=site

Shubina, I. (2015). Cognitive-behavioral therapy of patients with PTSD: Literature Review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 165, 208–216. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.624

Shuwiekh, H., Kira, I. A., & Ashby, J. S. (2018). What are the personality and trauma dynamics that contribute to posttraumatic growth? International Journal of Stress Management, 25(2), 181–194. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/str0000054

Vusparatih, Dina Sekar. (2018). The linkages between mindfulness and Social Information Processing Theory on the usage of Whatsapp Media Groups. Humaniora, (1), 105. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.21512/humaniora.v9i1.4306

Whitehead, A. L., Perry, S. L., & Baker, J. O. (n.d.). Make America Christian Again: Christian Nationalism and Voting for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election. SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION, 79(2), 147–171. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1093/socrel/srx070

Wisam Chaleila. (2016). Between a rock and a hard place: Racist, xenophobic, and materialist 1920s America struggling for home and identity. Cogent Arts & Humanities, (1). https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/23311983.2016.1191123

Wolnik, K., Busse, B., Tholen, J., Yndigegn, C., Levinsen, K., Saari, K., & Puuronen, V. (2017). The long shadows of the difficult past? How young people in Denmark, Finland and Germany remember WWII. Journal of Youth Studies, 20(2), 162–179. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/13676261.2016.1206866