“What makes hate tick? How can we stop it?” These are the questions that Jim Mohr, director of Gonzaga University’s Institute for Action Against Hate, asks himself every day as he develops a new field of study around hate. Mohr believes that despite all the devastating examples of hate in the world, no one really understands why one person hates another. The institute hopes to change that through the interdisciplinary study of hate, incorporating insights from history, psychology, religious studies, anthropology, and political science. Mohr cautions against simple explanations of the emotion and points out that fear, greed, and even the desire to belong can drive hate. That said, he is also optimistic: “We can change. There has to be hope.” [%comments]
Why Do We Hate?
TAGS: emotions
and 
. You can also watch it on 
What I hate is when someone is new to an issue that’s been under a lot of scrutiny because of its implications for humanity’s future, and then reports on it in a glib way that gets all the facts wrong, misquotes experts, fails to do basic reality checks, and leaves out significant information that affects the conclusion.
Unfortunately, I can’t think of any examples off the top of my head. Can anyone help me here?
In addition to the question of defining hate, as John T pointed out, Mohr must seriously ask and consider whether hate is ever a good thing (perhaps evolutionarily) and whether we really want all hate to be eviscerated. Perhaps the definition of hate we choose to use, might shape our answers to those two questions.
hate is just love gone sour
A noble quest, but understanding hate is probably an epistemological ‘tar baby,’ not unlike ‘intelligence.’ Lacking a precise conceptual definition, scientists proceed to develop and refine operational definitions of the construct. Once they do so, their validity is widely challenged. A banal and self-evident conclusion: Hate is likely to be a multi-dimensional construct that does not lend itself to a conceptual defintion that has wide consensus.
John T nails the critical first step: outline very specifically what we are referring to when referring to “hate.”
I would also add that, similar to examining Alzheimers patients to enrich our understanding of memory, any such study should also examine those not so easily inclined to hate…under circumstances that would likely drive some to murderous rage. These unique individuals possess a near limitless compassion that, in contrast to the rest of us, make them interesting subjects.
I, for one, find that hate blinds me from a reasoned response. But, of course, I am human. And occasionally not a proponent of reason. Don’t hate me, please!
I wonder what the neuroscience of hate looks like – whether hate “feels good” for some.
“He will find that truth is subjective when hate occurs.”
Truth as subjective? Absolutely not. There’s no such thing as “subjective truth”; it collapses into subjectivism and a person’s beliefs about their subjective views.
As someone who does conceptual analysis, I would have to concur that Dr. Kilianski holds a view that, on a prima facie basis, seems to be correct.
Omitting philosophy from this interdepartmental group assumes something about scientific realism, or (in an extreme case that would have to be fleshed out) logical positivism.
Sounds like Jim Mohr needs to get some philosophers of science/cog-sci/psychology on board.
People hate for many reasons, some complicated, some very simple. But all these reasons boil down to some variant of “people hate because it feels good”.
It can be the adrenaline high enjoyed by soccer hooligans, the perverted sense of order for the racist, or the quiet self-satisfaction of a forum troll. But all of them do it to scratch an itch of one sort or another.