Back in the 1970s, I taught high school biology for a few years. One of the classic experiments my Grade 12 class did was the “boil a frog” exercise.
We caught a few frogs in a marsh not far from the school. We lightly sedated the biggest frog with sodium phenolatic solution and placed it in the middle of a pot that had been heated to 165 F. The frog, who was in no way hurt, immediately jumped the pot and hightailed it for the door.
Every student in the class theorized correctly that it would. We retrieved the frog. We then put Kermie in the middle of a pot of cold water. The docile frog stayed put. We placed the “frog in the pot” on an electric stove. Then we gradually applied heat over the course of 40 minutes. The water was heated gradually from cold to 165 F. There appeared to be no discomfort or pain.
Some students theorized the frog would jump before the temperature reached 165 F, but he didn’t. Why he didn’t is a mystery. Some students suggested we just picked a stupid frog. Others thought that he (she?) might have been genetically programmed to sustain heat. Perhaps he sunned himself a lot out in the marsh on a lily pad. We don’t know.
Personally, I think it was a matter of the frog becoming gradually acclimatized to its environment with no perceived reason to escape .
We know from experiments conducted by Dopiddy and Wangle (1979) in a university setting where they brought a frog in cold water to boiling point (212 F) that the little amphibian succumbed to the heat with apparently no desire to jump. We don’t know why for sure but the “gradually getting used to the environment” made the most sense to my class and me.
But we do know the boiling frog syndrome has a connection to the nature and the psychology of human beings. Take the citizenry of North Battleford for instance.
Recently in the Regional Optimist, there was a half page of police reports –fights, assaults, break and enters, alcohol-related offences, robberies, businesses being held up – typical, every week North Battleford stuff. It appears to be getting worse week by week and month by month. The usual. We’re used to it aren’t we? We’re like the frog.
Yep, good old North Battleford has bit the top of the crime severity index five years in a row is it not? I remember I was yawning when I read the report. I live on the west side of the city. It’s not as bad, even though, our neighbours were robbed of valuables a couple weeks ago, and that morning we noticed tracks in the snow to our three vehicles and front and garage doors.
So, I was reading the crime report. Wham, it hit me. Three individuals wearing balaclavas, with one carrying a long-barrel rifle, broke into a house on 101st Street and robbed the inhabitants at gunpoint. Hello. Seriously? Are we as responsible citizens going to respond to this? Or are we going to succumb like the frog did? Are we so used to escalating crime in this city that we just shrug it off. Are we pathologically used to it? How close are we to the boiling point?
Here’s an idea, a strategy to fight crime in our city. My career in public education spanned 36 years, 20 of which were served as a high school principal. I had the reputation of being a strong principal. My school had rules. When a student breached the rules there was a consequence – a penalty, a punishment.
If he vandalized something in the school, he paid cash to cover the loss, or if he didn’t have cash he worked it off – shovelled snow, washed desks, swept and scrubbed hallways. Restitution? Sure. Then after the student had paid his debt, there were obligatory counselling sessions with a paternalistic, fatherly principal. Authority figures in schools and in society need to be caring and empathetic as much as they need to be resolute.
Important moral lessons were learned. Rarely did this kind of student re-offend. When laws are broken in society, there need to be consequences. The penalties need to be stiff enough to act both as a deterrent and restitution.
Here’s another. I have a carpenter friend who keeps a set of expensive of tools in his truck box (locked at night). A few years back, two young offenders stole his truck and drove it at high speeds to 30 miles west of the city. They rolled it about five or six times destroying the truck and most of the tools. These two got some time added to their sentences, but there was no restitution.
My friend got his keys back and a few tools, but he sustained a large loss. It cost him a lot of money. The youths in question did not have to apologize or even write a note of regret. Now of course there was too much damage here for the boys to work it off. But that’s no excuse for simply leaving it. What should have happened?
These young offenders should have been required to put in two months of hard work – shovelling, digging, hauling lumber, nailing, moving drywall working with the carpenter. Too hard? Nope. Hard lessons? Yes, but not too hard.
These boys learned nothing other than they could get away with committing a major crime. They did not learn that it is fundamentally and morally wrong to steal. They re-offended of course. A couple of years down the line, they ended up in the Prince Albert Penitentiary. And that’s tragic.
