Is anyone any good at maths?

[jebus197]

OK this is a subject of some shame and embarrassment. I am studying psychology. Consequently I know nothing, or very little about mathematics. (A condition I hope to address in some small way next year)

However after some thought it seems it may be possible to say something significant about the nature of the human condition and to express this as a hypothesis in exact mathematical terms.

For example, if one has a number of variable conditions, which could be expressed in terms of N, I and O, where both N and I are said to be variables and O is regarded to be exactly equivalent to the relative proportions of both N and I (or in other words the total sum of O is dependant entirely on a combination of N and I). N and I need not always have the same value (or in other words they can vary independently of each other and O may or may not occur and/or be present depending on whether the relative amounts of both N and I are very high, or very low. However O is almost guaranteed to occur (at least with a very high probability) when both N and I do have quite a high value. So the question is, how would you express this in exact mathematical terms?

I'm probably not explaining this very well and I'm possibly making myself seem a little foolish by attempting to do so - and I'm sure those familiar with Mathematics will find my attempts to do this very amusing. However should anyone be interested, I would be happy to explain the exact condition I'm attempting to describe in plain English, so that those anyone who wishes to help may decide whether it really is such a crazy thing to attempt to do or not.

In any case thanks in advance to anyone who doesn't laugh and who is prepared to help.

BTW this is NOT!!! college or course work, it is simply a matter of personal curiosity that emerged as a result of my studies. Consequently I will gain no credit for it, no mark and no form of personal recognition whatsoever. I am simply curious if such a formula may be possible - and if it is then I may be sufficiently inspired to wish to construct similar formulas and to study mathematics in much greater detain at some point in the future.

Thanks!

[Baptist]

errr.. isnt it just f(O)=N+I?

[jebus197]

Thanks. But I'm so maths stupid I just don't know. How did you figure it out? I mean can you explain it?

Thanks!

[PL_ Veteran]

errr.. isnt it just f(O)=N+I?

O may or may not occur and/or be present depending on whether the relative amounts of both N and I are very high, or very low. However O is almost guaranteed to occur (at least with a very high probability) when both N and I do have quite a high value.

Your formula doesn't take that into account.

[ninjamunky]

Why not make it a case-based formula:

If N is greater than some number and I is greater than another number, it will work, but if not, it does not exist. You just have to define values for a and b and decide if they should be included or not. If they are to be included, then >= should be used, otherwise the > will work.

[jebus197]

I guess I should let you in kind of on the scenario I'm attempting to describe.

Basically I'm talking about why people show obedience to authority. It may sound crazy but there is a very famous study by a psychologist called Stanley Milgram which investigates why the German prison guards in world war two obeyed the authority and orders of their superiors to exterminate millions of Jews.

You can read about the experiment here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Some clips may be available on Google video.

My argument is that this is due to the combined effects of two recognised types of social influence. There are:

Informational Influence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity#In...ional_influence

and Normative social influence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity#Normative_influence

You can read more about the subject of social conformity here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity

It is a quite complicated argument and it would take an essay to explain it properly - although I have argued it very effectively I think.

But essentially my hypothesis is that Obedience O is the combined relative effect of both Informational social influence I and Normative social influence N, when both of these are present in the same scenario. The higher the levels of N and I (the greater the degree of these different factors present) the higher the likelihood that O (or obedience) will occur.

There may or may not be be a certain threshold to this. I mean, one can imagine a scenario in Milgram's experiment with multiple researchers and multiple teachers were present who were also confederates in the experiment (except one teacher - who is in fact the subject being studied) and where these other teachers had been told to continue administering shocks all the way up to 450v.

This qualifies as both informational and normative social influence, informational as the subject conforms to to the informational influence of multiple researchers (and of the institution they may be in) and the normative influence of the other teachers (who as I said, are all stooges also).

However, it's unclear if there is a limit to this, or if obedience will become less if you add more and more teachers and more and more researchers. The evidence regarding how almost a whole society collaborated with Hitler and the Nazi's would suggest that there isn't.

So the higher the levels of normative ( N ) and informational social influence ( I ) present and the more likely Obedience ( O ) is likely to occur. Clearly N and I need not be equal and both N and I can be independently very high, or very low. Also high levels of I and low levels of N (or even zero) can still produce obedience, as is true for the converse of this. However O is most likely to occur when both high levels of I and N are present.

I hope this makes sense to someone.

The point is having thought about things in these terms, I wondered if it might be possible to form a mathematical hypothesis which predicts this behaviour. In a sense as crazy as it sounds, it represents the Holocaust as a mathematical hypothesis and it predicts the conditions under which a genocide is most likely to occur. It is also a formula for the successful maintenance of a totalitarian government.

More useful perhaps is that it helps us to better understand one of the most baffling aspects of human behaviour.

So if anyone can write an equation like this - and then explain it for people like me (and others) who are not mathematicians, I would be extremely grateful.

I am not sure if the above equations work. If someone could explain it, it is quite possible it might.

Edited November 19, 2008 by jebus197

[jebus197]

PS

In case anyone is interested, a real world example of this can be found here:

http://www.gelsenzentrum.de/suchomel_lanzmann_english.htm

Be warned this is an interview with SS-Guard Franz Suchomel, who was a guard at the Nazi death camp known as Treblinka. If you are at all faint of heart or easily disturbed, DO NOT read it! It is extremely graphic and upsetting.

However my argument is that Suchomel was simply responding to the combined informational and normative social influence of his peers and superiors.

Informational because he was responding to the informational influence of his superiors and the institution in which he found himself (the army) and normative because he was responding to the influence of his peers (the other guards/his colleagues).

[jebus197]

Anyway so it is at least possible to express this scenario in pure mathematical terms? I know it's probably quite a heavy thought, but this is simply one of the areas that psychologists study on their route to becoming psychologists.

Besides which I think it's useful to be able to predict when situations like this are most likely to occur so that we can know how to avoid them.