Nope, but kudos for honesty.
I don't think so. First of all, peoples' IQs don't really change until they get quite old, when they drop. You are actually smarter from about 10 to the end of your reproductive usefulness, at which point you start to get dumber.
Secondly, the entire basis of her argument was that when she was an undergrad she saw the same thing. Anecdotal stories are nice, but when you have PhD you should be offering up some actual evidence to support your conjecture.
Is age a factor? If you created a similar environment for 40-somethings would you get a riot? Why or why not? Those are the questions that should be asked.
Diminished sense of responsibility because the chance of being caught is perceived as low. Which is probably an accurate perception. People deemed, even for the moment, to have authority or to be in control, are followed.
I listened to Peter Gabriel's Milgram's 37 when I was a young teenager. I asked my mom what Milgram's 37 was and she didn't know but (being my mom) took me to the library. (Yes kids this was before
the Internet. Is Internet still capitalized?)
Milgram's 37 refers to a compliant 37 out of 40 subjcts in psychologist Milgram's Experimet 18. Milgram ran an experiment that brought volunteers in to shock subjects who wouldn't answer questions put to them. 37 out of 40 administered shocks. 65%--SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT--of the volunteers gave what they thought was a lethal shock to the subjects, whom they did not even know.http://cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm
Why is it so many people obey when they feel coerced? Social psychologist Stanley Milgram researched the effect of authority on obedience. He concluded people obey either out of fear or out of a desire to appear cooperative--even when acting against their own better judgment and desires.
We Do What We're Told lyrics
milgram's 37we do what we're told
we do what we're told
we do what we're told
told to do
Milgram was about people obeying an authority figure - that's not the case in a riot, certainly not this one. Diminished responsibility in a crowd is a much more salient factor, as is the herding instinct, go with the crowd. But in Vancouver, for sure, a lot of dickheads came just to riot, they weren't ordered to nor were they just caught up in the moment.
A writer in Vancouver Sun said it was because young people today have no challenges, and I think he has a point. We don't expect much from them. A year or two of national service would be a good idea. He suggested military service, tho I wonder if the military would want goofs like this. Young guys need to let off steam - if we don't provide socially acceptable avenues for that, they do it in stupid ways like this.
As for punishment, I would rather see them have to work to pay back the damages. In Vancouver some people have come back to offer that to merchants that were damaged in the riot. Some of that was motivated to make a good impression on the court when their case comes up, but I think it's a better solution than putting them in jail. But it's got to be more than the usual community service bullshit, which is usually just a scam.