According to foreign media reports on September 8, Beijing time, 80 Parisians were given an opportunity to participate in the trial broadcast of the new reality TV “La zone XTR ê me” a few years ago. After greeting the participants in the studio, the producers asked them to form a group of two, one as the “questioner” and the other as the “contestant”. After the participants come on stage and the host explains the rules to them, things get dark. According to the rules of the competition, once the contestant answers wrong, the questioner will punish the contestant with electric shock. And every time to improve the electric shock intensity, up to 460 V, up to twice the European standard socket voltage. If a pair of participants successfully survive 27 rounds, they will be regarded as winning. After explaining the rules, the contestants are led into a small room and tied to a chair, while the questioner sits in the middle of the stage. Then the game begins. < / P > < p > as this is just a trial run, participants were told that they won’t get any money for winning the game. But most of the questioners still shocked the contestants, and even after hearing the screams of pain from the small room, they did not stop. Fortunately, the screams were only made up by the contestants, and they were not really shocked. In this way, the questioners participated in a carefully designed experiment to help scientists study the impact of different personalities on moral behavior. You may think that the most vicious questioner must be impulsive, antisocial, or at least immoral. But French scientists found that the opposite was true: the participants who were willing to give the strongest shocks actually scored the highest on moral sense. This character is often associated with prudence and self-discipline. < / P > < p > “if someone is used to being a docile, orderly and well integrated person, it will be more difficult for them to disobey orders.” Laurent B è gue, a behavioral scientist at the University of Grenoble Alps. In these cases, this personality means that they are more likely to torture others. < / P > < p > in addition to these findings, a series of new studies have shown that people with high self-control and self-discipline often have unexpected dark side. These studies can help us understand why “model citizens” sometimes turn into “poisonous snakes”. It will also help us to further understand unethical behavior in the workplace and other environments. For decades, self-control has been seen as an advantage. Self control can be evaluated in a variety of ways, such as questionnaires on moral sense (which will examine an individual’s tendency towards self-discipline and organization), and experiments on self-control (such as the famous “marshmallow test”) and so on. < / P > < p > people with high self-control tend to have better learning and work performance, adopt healthier lifestyles, are less likely to overeat or abuse drugs, and prefer to exercise. These people have the ability to overcome impulses, which means they are less likely to show aggressive or violent tendencies and have little criminal record. Therefore, people think that self-control can improve people’s moral level. Some scientists have even suggested that self-control consists of the so-called “moral muscle”, which determines our ability to act morally. However, liad Uziel of Bar Ilan University in Israel started a study a few years ago to find out whether “situations” play an important role in determining the outcome of self-control. He speculates that self-control is just a useful tool to help people achieve any goal, which can be good or bad. In most cases, our social norms give feedback to collaborators, so people with a high degree of self-control just meet that expectation. But if we change social norms, the way these people treat others is not blameless. To test this idea, Uzel conducted a standard psychological experiment called the dictator game. In the experiment, a participant gets a sum of money and can share it with a partner. Because our social norms encourage cooperation with others, people tend to be generous. “To be reasonable, they have no reason to share the money with others.” “But participants tend to give one-third to others,” Uzel explains The researchers found that people with high self-control were very generous if they were afraid that others would accuse them of being mean. However, if their behavior is carried out in secret, and they don’t need to worry about other people’s accusations, they will become much more selfish than people with low self-control, unwilling to help others, and all in their own interests. In the latter case, they had almost all the money. People with higher self-control seem to be more careful about the timing of antisocial behavior in order to avoid being caught by others. In a recent study conducted by David lane and colleagues at the University of Western Illinois, they asked subjects whether they had misbehaving and whether they had suffered the consequences of their actions. Sure enough, they found that people with strong self-control were more likely to escape punishment for dangerous driving and cheating on exams. They seem to judge carefully which behaviors can be accepted by social norms. If violating the norms will affect their reputation, they will strictly follow the norms. However, if social norms allow such behaviors to exist, firm willpower will add a helping hand to evil behaviors. In a terrifying study, psychologist Thomas Denson of the University of New South Wales in Australia invited some subjects to the laboratory and assigned them an unusual task of filling a coffee grinder with bugs. What the subjects didn’t know was that the grinder was specially designed so that insects could actually crawl out before they were ground. But in the process of insects crawling, the grinder will still emit a kind of human creaking sound. Subjects were told that the aim of the experiment was to better understand “specific interactions between humans and animals.”. With this name, the behavior is more acceptable from the perspective of social morality. It is found that the influence of self-control depends on people’s sense of moral responsibility. If someone attaches great importance to the moral consequences of their actions, then the level of self-control has little effect on their behavior. They also kill a certain number of insects, but even if such people have more self-control, it is not easy for them to follow such orders. But for other subjects, the more self-control they had, the more worms they killed. They seem to be more keen on executing scientists’ instructions and better at suppressing their aversion to the task, which makes them efficient killers. The players in the “extreme zone” mentioned above also show very similar behavior patterns, but the scale is much larger than this study. The experiment was inspired by a series of controversial experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s. In Milgram’s experiment, he examined whether subjects were willing to torture others with electric shocks in the name of science. These experiments are often used to show people’s absolute obedience to authority. But what the French researchers want to know is which types of personality are most likely to follow such instructions. The results showed that the subjects with high self-control applied more than 100 volts to their partners in the game. Such a high voltage can cause aphasia, loss of consciousness and even death. < / P > < p > interestingly, in addition to a high degree of self-control, a high degree of compliance (a personality that wants to please others) is the only personality that reinforces this brutality. “These people tend to shock their victims more strongly, probably to avoid conflict with the producers.” “They want to be a reliable person, and they want to maintain it all the time.” The ideas put forward by Berg’s team in the paper are in contrast to the assessment of Adolf Eichmann by the 20th century philosopher Hannah Arendt. Arendt put forward the famous “evil of mediocrity” to describe how ordinary people like Eichmann committed heinous crimes. Baig’s research suggests that the characteristics that lead people to behave unethically may not be just “mediocre”, but in other cases, they may be “adorable.”. For example, we generally choose people who are highly ethical and compliant as our employees or partners. Baig stressed that the study must be able to replicate before we can reach a conclusion about human nature. I wonder if features like high self-control can help us predict the probability that someone will behave unethically. It would be interesting to predict this. According to Ryan, it depends on the strength of social norms. “I think these findings can be applied to other behaviors in general, as long as people can convince themselves that these things are not harmful to others and that someone has already done so.” For example, there is evidence that people with a strong sense of morality are more likely to evade taxes. In the office, “model employees” may also steal from the company, because they feel that “the money doesn’t matter to the company.”. Uzzier also suspects that when group cohesion begins to disintegrate, people with high self-control are more likely to show apathy when their sense of power or authority is threatened, or when others are competing with themselves. They may want to get promoted, stab you in the back, or flatter their boss, regardless of how their actions affect others. If we don’t appreciate the truth, maybe we should start with the truth. We may be annoyed by their unreliability, but at least in a situation like extreme zone, you still want them to decide your fate. Epic Games accused Google of monopolizing the latter, which may have a better chance than apple