Horizon:The 7/7 Bombers – A Psychological Investigation

[Erik]

This thread is dedicated to the BBC Horizon documentary "The 7/7 Bombers – A Psychological Investigation"

I've seen this show a week ago and thought it was very interesting.
Formar CIA officer Marc Sageman tried to find out what makes people suicide bombers and he came up with the "bunch of guys theory" which I think holds a lot of truth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog.../bombers.shtml

The 7/7 Bombers – A Psychological Investigation

What makes someone want to blow themselves – and others - up?

On 7 July 2005 Britain experienced its first ever suicide attack. Four bombs exploded in central London, killing 52 people and injuring over 700. When Scotland Yard launched one of the biggest investigations in its history, another first was quickly uncovered: the suicide bombers were home-grown, they were young British men, attacking their own country.

A handful of scientists have dedicated their lives to understanding the mind of the suicide bomber. It's a field that has grown rapidly in recent years as suicide attacks have become the weapon of choice for extremist groups around the world. These scientists are challenging our preconceptions about who these suicide bombers are.

Much of the early research was conducted by Ariel Merari from Tel Aviv University. He interviewed the friends and family of suicide bombers, as well as those who were stopped before their bombs went off. Merari tried to piece together a personality type capable of such acts. The unsettling finding that emerged was that suicide bombers weren't mad, weren't psychopaths, in fact they did not have any psychological flaws that set them apart.

'More royal than the king'
After the 9/11 attacks on America in 2001, ex-CIA case officer and forensic psychiatrist Marc Sageman decided to look beyond the individual. He wanted to know exactly how the 9/11 cell had formed. Looking for patterns in their behaviour, he noticed that the leaders of the cell all joined al-Qaeda while they were living abroad. As he extended his research, he realised this was true for 75% of all al-Qaeda members. It seemed that living abroad was significant. Sageman believed that their isolation from cultural origins meant they had developed an ex-pat mentality and become 'more royal than the king'.

As his database grew, he found that another sub-group had been cut off from their cultural origins. Second or third generation immigrants formed 10% of al-Qaeda members. This led Sageman to conclude that 85% of all al-Qaeda members had experienced some form of cultural estrangement.

Sageman seemed to have discovered a fertile ground for creating suicide bombers. But this still does not explain why some people are willing to kill themselves and others in the process. According to psychologists, the answer lies in a force that can be more powerful than an individual's personality or upbringing. That force is group dynamics, one of the strongest motivational factors in human psychology.

Conforming to the group
When humans are in a group, they conform to the group, they become more and more like each other. Bonds within a close-knit group can grow surprisingly strong – strong enough that they match, or even trump biological family ties. Throughout history, organisations such as the military have harnessed this power of the group to motivate individuals.

It's no surprise that virtually all suicide attacks in modern times have relied on group psychology. From the squadrons of Kamikaze pilots in Japan to the highly trained suicide units of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

But new evidence from Marc Sageman shows that extremist cells can form spontaneously, without any connections to established organisations. His analysis of al-Qaeda has shown that most people who join the organisation join when they are already radicalised, and crucially this radicalisation process has happened among a group of friends. He calls it his 'bunch of guys' theory.

The 'bunch of guys' theory is a vital breakthrough in understanding the mind of suicide bombers. The willingness to carry out attacks very often pre-dates any contact with an organisation. There is no need for a mastermind figure. Recognising the importance of this and of these group dynamics, it is hoped, will help spot future cells before it is too late and, ultimately, prevent further attacks.

Further reading:
Terrorists, Victims and Society: Psychological Perspectives on Terrorism and Its Consequences by Andrew Silke

Understanding Terror Networks by Marc Sageman

I hope more people have seen it and want to discuss.
If you haven't seen it you are also welcome to discuss but please keep this strictly on topic.

[Guderian]

Conforming to the group
When humans are in a group, they conform to the group, they become more and more like each other. Bonds within a close-knit group can grow surprisingly strong – strong enough that they match, or even trump biological family ties. Throughout history, organisations such as the military have harnessed this power of the group to motivate individuals.

It's no surprise that virtually all suicide attacks in modern times have relied on group psychology. From the squadrons of Kamikaze pilots in Japan to the highly trained suicide units of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

Yep, it took scientists all these tests to figure this out...it is basically a version of social factors, peer pressure and communal reinforcement of beliefs which would otherwise be considered anti social. Being a Sri Lankan and a Tamil I know what the Tamil Tigers do, they get kids young and introduce them to the group where suicidal bombing is the ultimate "honour". It is interesting to note that most Black Tigers (the suicide branch of the tigers) are women, who I believe are more suceptable to social influences, especially within Sri Lankan society. It is also interesting to note that most Tigers who join when they are older do not become suicide bombers, and this is even more true for males.

Another point is that the tigers are not motivated by religion, the Tigers have a very off and on relationship with religion, and the group consists of hindus, muslims and christians. To most of the lower ranks of the tiger tamil nationalism is not even that important, what they do have is a feeling of belonging in the group and idolisation of thier leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, who I think has very alpha male like qualities. Nationalism only serves as the factor that creates these groups, not the one that truly motivates each individual in the group.

For muslims I think it is the Islam that forms the group, but that is all it does. They do it because their mates fully support them and to not go through with it would be considered betrayl of the group (people are known to commit suicide when they feel that they have let the group down so either way).

Jeez I sound like a phycologist...

[Francisco Montana]

Good post Erik. But like Guderian eluded to, I don't think it's really that groundbreaking.

Peer Pressure.

I'm not trying to discount it's value in this struggle. To be sure, I'm glad they are making headway in their understanding of the problems.

I just don't think it's very shocking to hear it boils down to Peer Pressure.

Great article though. Very thourough.

And nice insight, Guderian...thanks.

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[Erik]

His "breaktrough" discovery wasn't that peer pressure can turn people into terrorists, it was that ordinary groups of friends can turn radical without outside influence.
This wasn't pointed out so clearly in this article but it was the main point of the documentary.

Previously experts beleives most terrorists were actively recruited by Al-Qaida or radical Imams and then "brainwashed" to become terrorists.
But he discovered most suicide bombers turned radical first and only came into contact with Al-Qaida when they had already decided to become terrorists.

So it's not radicals brainwashing ordinary people.
It's ordinary people brainwashing ordinary people, including themselves.


The only thing needed is a close group of friends. note: those friends aren't radical, they are regular guys with healthy opinions on life.
Members of such groups tend to accept any opinion that the majority of the group holds, even if it happens to be flawed or dangerous.
The groups oppinions can slowly become more and more extreme because everybody always agrees.
Such groups can even accept ("out of the blue") the idea that being a suicide bombers is the best thing there is.
And then they can also encourage eachother to act on it by realy becomming suicude bombers.

So terror cells aren't created top-down by Al-Qaida.
They are created by ordinary (non-radical) groups of people who slowly become radical ON THEIR OWN and then join a bigger network.
It's a bottom-up process.

This is a very new idea, and if it's true it has huge consequences.
For one thing dissolving existing networks like Al-Qaida would make little difference.
If people can turn radical without being influenced by existing terrorist organization then they can also operate completely on their own.
Even closing radical Mosques makes no difference because future terrorists don't listen to their Imam, they only listen to their own close group of friends.

If he is right (and I suspect he is) government must re-think the way they prevent terrorism.
In stead of looking for Al-Qaida in Afghanistan they should look for independant "groups of guys" in their own country.
Problem is: those "groups of guys" are everywhere but only a few of them turn radical, and the groups that do turn radical don't express those radical views with the outside world.

[Guderian]

I have to wait till this documentary comes to Australia, it sounds interesting. The group dynamics theory sounds just about right but I really can't say until I see it.

[Ummon]

Nazists weren't mad either. Just human. Humanity, to be converted into something good, takes lot of effort and study.

Ever heard of Milgram's experiment? One of the less ethical things there are in psychology, yet it proves that, if someone you perceive as an authority tells you to kill people, the majority (more than the majority, in truth, a lot more) will kill. Kill without mercy.

That is why I insist so much on the flaws of Islam. No religion should ever justify war and killing and hatred openly (or covertly for that matter). The consequences are terrible. And Islam does.

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

The Milgram experiment was a famous scientific experiment of social psychology. The experiment was first described by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University in an article titled Behavioral Study of Obedience published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology in 1963, and later summarized in his 1974 book Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. It was intended to measure the willingness of a participant to obey an authority who instructs the participant to do something that may conflict with the participant's personal conscience.

The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" (Milgram, 1974)

Milgram summed up in the article "The Perils of Obedience" (Milgram 1974), writing:

"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation."



Contents [hide]
1 Method of the experiment
2 Results
3 Reactions
4 Variations
5 In popular culture
6 See also
7 External links and references
7.1 Film



[edit]
Method of the experiment
The method of Milgram's original experiment was as follows:

Subjects were recruited by newspaper ad and direct mail solicitation to participate in a "study of memory" at Yale. (The experiments themselves took place in two rooms in the basement of Linsly-Chittenden Hall, on the university's Old Campus.) The experiment was advertised as taking one hour, for which those responding would be paid $4.50. Participants were men between the ages of 20 and 50, coming from all educational backgrounds from an elementary school dropout to participants with doctoral degrees.

The participant and a confederate (an actor pretending to be another participant) are told by the experimenter that they will be participating in an experiment to test the effects of punishment on learning behavior.

A slip of paper is given to the participant, another to the confederate. The participant is led to believe that one of the slips says "learner" and one says "teacher" and that he is randomly given one of the slips. The actor claims to have been assigned as "learner," so the participant is led to believe that the roles have been chosen randomly. In actuality both slips say "teacher," while the actor just misreports what is on his slip; no element of randomness is involved.

The participant or "teacher" is then given a sample 45-volt electric shock from the electro-shock generator, as a "sample" of the shock the "learner" will supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" is then given a list of word pairs which he is to teach the learner. The teacher begins by reading off a list of word pairs to the learner. After reading through the word pairs, the teacher will then only read the first word of each pair, and read 4 possible answers. The learner will indicate which second word he believes to be correct by pressing a button (1 through 4) corresponding to the teacher's choices. If incorrect, the learner will receive a shock, increasing by 15 volts with each wrong answer. If correct, the next word pair is read.

The teacher believes that he is actually giving shocks to the learner participant. In reality, there are no shocks being given to the learner. Once the learner is separated, he sets up a tape recorder, integrated with the electro-shock generator, which plays pre-recorded tracks at certain shock levels. After a certain number of level increases, the actor starts to bang on the wall that separates him from the teacher (subject). After banging on the wall and complaining of his heart condition (which he talked about at the beginning of the experiment), the learner gives no further response to the questions and no further complaints.

It is at this point that many people begin to indicate their desire to stop the experiment and check on the subject. Many test subjects pause at 135 volts and begin to question the purpose of the experiment. Some continue after being assured that they will not be held responsible. Some participants begin to laugh nervously once they hear the screams of pain coming from the learner.

If, at any time, the subject indicates his desire to halt the experiment he is given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:

Please continue.
The experiment requires you to continue, please go on.
It is essential that you continue.
You have no choice, you must continue.
If the subject still wishes to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment is halted. Otherwise, it is halted after the subject has given the maximal 450-volt shock three times in succession.

[edit]
Results
Milgram created a documentary film showing the experiment and its results, titled "Obedience", legitimate copies of which are hard to find today. He also produced a series of five other films on social psychology with Harry From, some of which touched on his experiments [1]. They may all be obtained from Penn State Media Services.

Before the experiment was conducted Milgram polled fellow psychologists as to what the results would be. They unanimously believed that only a few sadists would be prepared to give the maximum voltage.

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (27 out of 40) of experimental participants administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock, though many were quite uncomfortable in doing so; everyone paused at some point and questioned the experiment, some even saying they would return the cheque for the money they were paid. No participant steadfastly refused to give further shocks before the 300-volt level. Variants of the experiment were later performed by Milgram himself and other psychologists around the world with similar results. Apart from confirming the original results the variations have tested variables in the experimental setup.

Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland (who is also the author of a biography of Milgram, called The Man who shocked the World) performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment (done at various times since, in the US and elsewhere). He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, between 61% and 66%, regardless of time or location (a popular account of Blass' results was published in Psychology Today, March/April 2002). The full results were published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. [Blass, 1999]

[Erik]

Ever heard of Milgram's experiment? One of the less ethical things there are in psychology, yet it proves that, if someone you perceive as an authority tells you to kill people, the majority (more than the majority, in truth, a lot more) will kill. Kill without mercy.

I have heard of it.
They also showed it in the docu. (but I had seen it before).

But this is about a figure of authority making people do thing they wouldn't normally do.
But a different experiment (also shown in the docu.) showed you don't need an authority figure at all, all you need is a group of equals.

In this experiment they pretended to do a simply vision test with 5 subject (all in the same room together).
Four of the "subject" were realy actors but the last one didn't know that.
They had to awnser multiple-choice questions that were very easy, but the four actors keps saying the wrong awnsers (but all the same wrong awnser).
In just a short time the real subject also gave the wrong awnsers, in accordance with the group, but while he knew he was wrong.
This expiriment shows people wil adjust to the group even if they know the group is wrong.

That is why I insist so much on the flaws of Islam. No religion should ever justify war and killing and hatred openly (or covertly for that matter). The consequences are terrible. And Islam does.

The point is: religion has nothing to do with it.
It's peer pressure from a small group that makes them terrorist, not somebody or something from outside that group.
People don't have to be religious to become terrorists, they just have to be part of a close group (say:4 highschool friends).

[Ummon]

I have heard of it.
They also showed it in the docu. (but I had seen it before).

But this is about a figure of authority making people do thing they wouldn't normally do.
But a different experiment (also shown in the docu.) showed you don't need an authority figure at all, all you need is a group of equals.

In this experiment they pretended to do a simply vision test with 5 subject (all in the same room together).
Four of the "subject" were realy actors but the last one didn't know that.
They had to awnser multiple-choice questions that were very easy, but the four actors keps saying the wrong awnsers (but all the same wrong awnser).
In just a short time the real subject also gave the wrong awnsers, in accordance with the group, but while he knew he was wrong.
This expiriment shows people wil adjust to the group even if they know the group is wrong.

That is Asch's experiment, though it doesn't pertain to aggressive behaviour. 5 people in that experiment didn't answer as the group despite the pressure, not even once, though. People will conform if they are weak (the definition is not a scientific one, of course). Being weak is the rule for human beings.

The point is: religion has nothing to do with it.

Wrong, religion has nothing to do with Asch's experiment, but has to do with Milgram's. An Imam, and a Priest, as much as superior officers, are figures of authority, and authority, for religious people, stems from God too.

It's peer pressure from a small group that makes them terrorist, not somebody or something from outside that group.
People don't have to be religious to become terrorists, they just have to be part of a close group (say:4 highschool friends).

You want to know Psychology better than a Psychologist?

[Erik]

That is Asch's experiment, though it doesn't pertain to aggressive behaviour. 5 people in that experiment didn't answer as the group despite the pressure, not even once, though. People will conform if they are weak (the definition is not a scientific one, of course). Being weak is the rule for human beings.

Yes, luckely not everybody is like that, but I think most people are.
And in a world with billions of people you wil always have millions of groups of friends that consist only of easily influenced people.
And some of those groups can get crazy ideas and become radical.

[quote]
Wrong, religion has nothing to do with Asch's experiment, but has to do with Milgram's. An Imam, and a Priest, as much as superior officers, are figures of authority, and authority, for religious people, stems from God too.

I mean religion has nothing to do with the "Bunch of guys theory" of Marc Sageman.
He explicitly points out that extrimism grows within a group, it's not injected from an outside source.

I think the only thing those groups do is copy ideas they hear in the media.
If there is constant talk of suicide bombers in the media they can easily develop the idea that they should become suicide bombers too.
And even if some people initially disagree they wil eventually conform to the group.

You want to know Psychology better than a Psychologist?

I agree with Marc Sageman, he is my buddy, I listen to him no matter what he sais (jk, of course).

I know you blame Islam for all terrorism and I know I can't change your mind.
I just wanted to point out Marc Sageman has a different theory about the cause of terrorism, one that doesn't require religion, and one that I think fits the evidence better.

His theory can explain more than just suicide bombers.
It can explain any group related violent activity.
For example: the Colombine shooting, gang rapes, etc. or just plain old vandalism.

[Ummon]

I don't blame Islam for all terrorism. I blame the violence in Islam for fomenting violent thoughts in those who later become Islamic terrorists. And you could change my mind, with a well articulated argumentation which disproved mine.

Yes, luckely not everybody is like that, but I think most people are.
And in a world with billions of people you wil always have millions of groups of friends that consist only of easily influenced people.
And some of those groups can get crazy ideas and become radical.

Again social pressure is not authority: Hitler telling his subjects (because subjects they were) to kill Jews is not the same as a group of people spontaneously conforming to the idea of killing Jews. Infact, the latter situation is highly unlikely.

[Erik]

Again social pressure is not authority: Hitler telling his subjects (because subjects they were) to kill Jews is not the same as a group of people spontaneously conforming to the idea of killing Jews. Infact, the latter situation is highly unlikely.

It is likely according to Marc Sageman.
At first I found it strange, but I think he is right.

btw: Hitler never told his subject to kill Jews, his subject came up with the idea and he allowed it to happen. (this doesn't make Hitler less guilty, it just shows people in nazi germany weren't only controlled from the top down)

[Ummon]

Sageman has no clue, if he says that extremist ideas emerge spontaneously. The group can conform to an idea, but someone perceived as authoritative has to introduce it (or justify it, since aggressiveness is natural as well). There is no society without leaders and authorities.

If a group copies an idea heard in the media, the media are the authority. If the media air the ideas of an extremist preacher, he is that authority. If the ideas of that preacher stem from the Quran, logically, the Quran is the original item to be blamed for the authoritative invitation to violence.

[Erik]

Sageman has no clue, if he says that extremist ideas emerge spontaneously. The group can conform to an idea, but someone perceived as authoritative has to introduce it (or justify it, since aggressiveness is natural as well). There is no society without leaders and authorities.

This was the conclusion of his study.
It contradicts previous ideas but that's always the case with new discoveries.
More work must be done to see if he is right, but you shouldn't call him clueless just because he is groundbreaking.
In this view all great scientists were "clueless" when they first expressed their groundbreaking discoveries.

If a group copies an idea heard in the media, the media are the authority. If the media air the ideas of an extremist preacher, he is that authority. If the ideas of that preacher stem from the Quran, logically, the Quran is the original item to be blamed for the authoritative invitation to violence.

If the media realy was their authority they would never become terrorists because the media strongly condones terrorism.
They take inspiration out of things they hear but they could not have copied their ideas straight from the media.
Plus: if the media was turning people into terrorists, why am I not affected?

The Quran can be interpreted in many ways.
Most muslims have a peacefull interpretation of the Quran.
What makes them choose a violent interpretation if not group dynamics?

[Ummon]

This was the conclusion of his study.
It contradicts previous ideas but that's always the case with new discoveries.
More work must be done to see if he is right, but you shouldn't call him clueless just because he is groundbreaking.
In this view all great scientists were "clueless" when they first expressed their groundbreaking discoveries.

Not all that is new is groundbreaking, and honestly, you haven't really posted much allowing me to evaluate this "groundbreaking" theory, beyond an idea which looks to me really clueless. Sincerely, I tend to evaluate it very negatively, as a scientist.

If the media realy was their authority they would never become terrorists because the media strongly condones terrorism.

Arab medias do almost always condone terrorism, infact, as you pointed out with your really meaningful lapsus.

They take inspiration out of things they hear but they could not have copied their ideas straight from the media.
Plus: if the media was turning people into terrorists, why am I not affected?

You may be affected by a lot of commonplace ideas, without knowing it. "Islam is a religion of peace", is infact a pretty mainstream and false statement.

The Quran can be interpreted in many ways.
Most muslims have a peacefull interpretation of the Quran.

We have explored this, and in truth, this hasn't been found at all, even in the statements of muslims who post here.

What makes them choose a violent interpretation if not group dynamics?

Authority and leadership is part of group dynamics, infact. Furthermore, Asch's experiment pointed out how it is really easier for those who disagree with mainstream opinions, to oppose them, if someone is with them. That would explain why in the Arab world, there is no outcry about terrorism today, and why it should be necessary to denounce the bad sides of Islam instead of trying to spread PC falsehoods about it.