Calhoun, J. B. A method of self-control of population growth among mammals living in the wild. Science, 1949, 109, 333-335.
Calhoun, J. B. The study of wild animals under controlled conditions. Annals of the New York Acadeluy of Science, 1950, 51, 1113-1122.
Calhoun, J. B. The social aspects of population dynamics. Journal of Mammalog, 1952, vol.33, no.2, 139-159.
Calhoun, J. B. Population density and social pathology. Scientific America, 1962, 206 (2). 139-148.

During the early 1960s, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) procured land in a rural area near Poolesville, Maryland, where a facility was constructed to accommodate various research projects, including those led by Calhoun. It was on this property that Calhoun conducted his renowned experiment, known as the mouse universes, with the most notable being universe 25.

In July 1968, the experiment began with the introduction of four pairs of mice into a specially designed habitat. The habitat, measuring 9 feet (2.7 m) square with 4.5-foot-high (1.4 m) sides, featured four groups of four vertical wire mesh “tunnels” on each side. These tunnels provided access to nesting boxes, food hoppers, and water dispensers. Despite ample provisions such as food, water, and nesting materials, and the absence of predators, the primary challenge imposed was the spatial constraint.

Initially, the population exhibited rapid growth, doubling every 55 days, and reached 620 by day 315. However, the pace of growth significantly slowed thereafter, with doubling occurring only every 145 days. Despite the experimental capacity for up to 3840 mice in nesting space, the final population on day 600 was a mere 2200. During the period between day 315 and day 600, a breakdown in social structure and normal behaviors became evident.

Noteworthy aberrations in behavior included premature expulsion of young before weaning, injuries to the young, increased homosexual behavior, inability of dominant males to defend their territory and females, aggressive actions by females, and heightened attacks among non-dominant males. After day 600, the social breakdown persisted, leading to a decline toward extinction. Females ceased reproduction, and males adopted solitary pursuits, avoiding courtship and combat. These males, termed “the beautiful ones,” focused solely on essential tasks like eating, drinking, sleeping, and grooming, displaying sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars.

The study’s conclusions highlighted that when all available space is occupied, and social roles are filled, competition and stress induce a complete breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately leading to population demise. Calhoun viewed the fate of the mouse population as a metaphor for the potential fate of humanity, describing the social breakdown as a “second death” akin to the Biblical concept mentioned in Revelation 2:11.

Calhoun’s study has been cited by authors like Bill Perkins as a cautionary tale about the dangers of living in an “increasingly crowded and impersonal world.” However, interpretations varied, with medical historian Edmund Ramsden suggesting that the mouse society’s decline resulted from excessive social interaction rather than density alone. Another perspective proposed a fair distribution problem rather than a population issue in the mouse universe.

“At the experiments’ end, the only animals still alive had survived at an immense psychological cost: asexual and utterly withdrawn, they clustered in a vacant huddled mass […] In the words of one of Calhoun’s collaborators, rodent “utopia” had descended into ‘hell’.”
— Edmund Ramsden

See also: www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4716
***

Download File

Download File

Download File

Download File

Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht, und wenn er auch die Wahrheit spricht.
Whoever lies once is not believed, even if he speaks the truth.

In order to identify a teenager who is a climate-activist, Proton handed over data to the government (under “terrorist law”).

• paris-luttes.info/recit-policier-de-sainte-marthe-15258?lang=fr

The article above, which claims that Proton passed on the IP address of the “activist”, was posted on Twitter by someone. (ProtonMail has explicitly stated in its privacy policy that it does not log IP addresses.)

Proton’s CEO responded to the tweet:

After the case was denied by Protons CEO someone posted the actual police report which clearly shows what was going on:

Then the CEO admitted:

Proton now changed its IP-log statement: arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/09/privacy-focused-protonmail-provided-a-users-ip-address-to-authorities/

Wikipeadia states:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_Mail (accessed 24.11.2023)

Due to the encryption utilized, Proton Mail is unable to hand over the contents of encrypted emails under any circumstances, but according to Proton’s privacy policy, Proton Mail can be legally compelled to log IP addresses as part of a Swiss criminal investigation.[64] For this reason, the company strongly suggests that users who need to hide their identity from the Swiss government use their Tor hidden service/onion site. I

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1109/ICCICT50803.2021.9510041
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.jisa.2022.103181
DOI URL
directSciHub download

“Important clarifications regarding arrest of climate activist”. proton.me. September 6, 2021. Retrieved September 10, 2021.

Blowback is the first thorough, scholarly study of the US government’s extensive recruitment of Nazis and fascist collaborators right after the war. Although others have approached the topic since, Simpson’s book remains the essential starting point. The author demonstrates how this secret policy of collaboration only served to intensify the Cold War and has had lasting detrimental effects on the American government and society that endure to this day.

Social Identity Theory (SIT), developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, explores the cognitive processes behind how individuals define their identities within social groups. It’s a fundamental theory in social psychology that helps explain intergroup behaviors, prejudices, and discrimination.

Core Tenets:

1. Categorization: SIT suggests that people categorize themselves and others into social groups, creating an “us vs. them” mentality. This categorization forms a part of one’s self-concept and social identity.

2. Social Comparison: Individuals strive to maintain a positive self-concept by comparing their in-group favorably with out-groups. This comparison bolsters self-esteem and enhances social identity.

3. In-Group Favoritism: People show preference and favoritism towards their in-group, as it contributes to a positive social identity, bolstering their self-esteem.

Processes in SIT:

1. Social Identity: It refers to the part of an individual’s self-concept that derives from their membership in social groups. For instance, someone may strongly identify themselves as a part of a religious, ethnic, or national group.

2. Cognitive Aspect: SIT emphasizes the cognitive processes involved in perceiving and categorizing oneself and others into various social groups, which influences behaviors and attitudes.

3. Intergroup Behavior: The theory explains intergroup behaviors, such as in-group favoritism and discrimination against out-groups. These behaviors are driven by the need to maintain a positive social identity.

Further References

1. Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison . Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations, 61(76), 293.

2. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict . The social psychology of intergroup relations, 33(47), 74.

3. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory . Basil Blackwell.

SIT is crucial in understanding group dynamics, intergroup conflicts, and the basis of prejudices. It provides insights into how social identities are formed, how they influence behaviors and attitudes, and the implications for intergroup relations.

The Minimal Group Paradigm, introduced by social psychologist Henri Tajfel in the 1970s, explores the minimal conditions required for individuals to exhibit in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination, even in the absence of substantial reasons for group differentiation. This paradigm aims to understand the psychological mechanisms underlying intergroup biases.

Foundation of the Minimal Group Paradigm:

1. Minimal Categorization: Participants are divided into groups based on trivial distinctions, like preferences for certain artworks, random assignments, or color choices.

2. Task Allocation: Individuals are then engaged in various activities where they distribute rewards or resources between members of their own group (in-group) and members of the other group (out-group).

Key Findings and Observations:

1. In-Group Favoritism: Even in conditions where group assignment is completely arbitrary or inconsequential, participants consistently show a bias towards their in-group. They tend to allocate more resources or rewards to members of their own group.

2. Out-Group Discrimination: Simultaneously, individuals exhibit discrimination against the out-group by favoring their in-group in resource distribution, even if it results in fewer overall resources for the in-group.

Psychological Mechanisms:

1. Social Identity Theory: Tajfel’s theory posits that people categorize themselves into social groups to boost their self-esteem. This categorization leads to in-group favoritism as a way to enhance their social identity and self-worth.

2. Minimal Conditions for Bias: The findings from the Minimal Group Paradigm suggest that even minimal and arbitrary categorization can lead to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination, highlighting the innate human tendency towards group biases.

Further References

1. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination . Scientific American, 223(5), 96-102.

2. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict . The social psychology of intergroup relations, 33(47), 74.

3. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem, and social identity . In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 28-47). Harvester Wheatsheaf.

The Minimal Group Paradigm provides essential insights into the psychological roots of intergroup biases, emphasizing how even the most minimal distinctions can trigger biases. Understanding these mechanisms is critical in addressing and mitigating intergroup conflicts and biases in various social settings.