RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

vincentML -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/3/2011 8:44:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Is there no tactic to which your ego will not stoop? You've accused tweakabelle of using mathematical trickery against you, Edwynn of "reductionist thinking" -- to mention only two of the false accusations you've published in this thread -- all to affect an appearance of unscathed erudition despite having been cut off at the knees pages ago...

And now you've sunk to this, the final shameless trump of a scoundrel: moving the goal posts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

in the aggragate history shows me that tribal aggression is a trait of our species.

That's a nice dance step, but the position being addressed is this one:

Human nature is primative predatory violance...   We act out of tribal emotions of fear and vengence.

And incidentally, "aggragate" is spelled aggregate, "primative" is spelled primitive, "violance" is spelled violence, and "vengence" is spelled vengeance.

K.



Thank you for correcting my spelling. I don't know what I would do without you. You have been so helpful. You haven't added anything but derogatory comments but the counterpoint of your poverty of ideas is sadly amusing. Yep, I am not too good at spelling but then you are not too good at original thinking. No wait, you did call me a shameless scoundral. Oh, that's rich. Gotta give you a point for that. And take away two for your inability to discuss an issue without making a personal attack. Must be hard to be you. My knees are just fine btw. Can't say the same for your temperament tho.



vincentML -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/3/2011 8:54:00 AM)

quote:

The truth is, we have war b/c we tolerate war, we have famine b/c we tolerate famine, people die of diseases b/c we tolerate their deaths. Our need to survive on an individual level supersedes our need to survive on a global level. Shortsighted thinking, in my opinion, but in many ways, understandable.


I agree with your thinking, Chatte. There have always been those who have had the courage to tell truth to power. Unfortunately, not enough or not effectively enough. Look how long it took to wind down the war in Vietnam and look at how ineffectual the mass worldwide marches were in the face of the determination of the Bush administration to attack Iraq. Mostly, however, we remain silent in our comfort. I have been no exception to the rule unfortunately.

thank you again, CP



Edwynn -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/3/2011 4:24:42 PM)



You argue against your own fundamental premise at every opportunity, by way of your own numerous occasions of pointing out exceptions as being proof as the 'nature' inherently born.  

You claim that the actions of some few, who, unarguably, have failed to move beyond the most rudimentary of animal considerations, are indicative of 'human nature' in obliviousness to the majority who's instinct is more in tune with the concept of evolution, consciously or intuitively, either and both ways.


To me, the great accomplishment of humans, despite academia's and the media's constantly hammering it into our heads otherwise, is that we not only survive, but progress beyond the aforementioned idolatry of  Rome ( but you didn't even know that, did you? most do not), the focus and grossly misleading ascribing of 'civilization' to some particular turning of 'predation' to the rise of  thereby, when in fact all those fables were and still are a staple of British and American 'convenient' understanding of things, with a large army of academics to 'back it up.' In case it escaped notice, hand in glove to the aspirations of the few, the very few, who would benefit in that regard.


Fact of the matter is, even some natural predators display deep and abiding communal and social considerations towards each other that on some occasions seem to surpass that of modern day humans. OTOH, there is nothing in the scientific literature that convincingly convinces that humans of the last 200,000 years or so relied solely on predation of other animals at all.  Modern day and older day studies abound of societies that hardly eat meat at all, some never, and have done so for thousands of years before some exogenous influence otherwise are there to be had, my own experience absence of such 'need' not being presented here as evidence.

Let's delve into the 'predation' paradigm further, shall we?

But only if you want to go there.

I'm not going to waste my time if you're not up for it.








Edwynn -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/3/2011 5:39:19 PM)



PS



Do not confuse primal predation of wild tomato plants or the occasional skirmish from one tribe to another on that occasion as 'aggression.'


Just people bumping into each other is all.


Lots of good relations the next day, before societies got so big as to elevate it to 'war.'






Kirata -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/3/2011 11:15:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

You haven't added anything but derogatory comments...

I was gonna say hey, that's not fair, ya gotta at least give me an opportunity! [:D]

But since you're lying again, why bother?

K.



vincentML -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/4/2011 8:05:44 AM)

quote:

You argue against your own fundamental premise at every opportunity, by way of your own numerous occasions of pointing out exceptions as being proof as the 'nature' inherently born.


Whenever I pointed out exceptions it was to acknowledge several things:

Firstly that although technology and mode of living have changed, e.g. we have become civilized, we live in urban areas, drive cars, work for corporations, etc., we still retain the survival impulses of our primitive ancestors which is tribal predation. Why wouldn’t we? What would make you think that those impulses have been extinguished?

Secondly, I tried to point out in several places that in the new environment the basic impulse has taken on new guises. Surely you are aware for example that in the business world it is not uncommon for one corporation to try to crush a competitor and destroy it. Recall the iconic TV ad put out years ago by Microsoft where a sledge hammer was hurled at the screen in an Orwellian slam at IBM. Or was it Apple at Microsoft? Not sure. Needless to say we have countless examples from the political world. Election campaigns are by definition evidence of one tribe of believers trying to crush another. And need I even mention the wars of religious conflict that were spelled out in the Torah, reignited by the sword of Constantine, continued by the battles in the late European middle ages, transported to the Americas by the Conquistadores, and still on going today in the conflict waged by militant Islamists?

Thirdly, I tried to point out that many people, maybe most are either so oppressed or so conformed to the rules of their society that they are the victims of quiet social violence, what Jules Feiffer referred to as “little murders.” Can’t you see that many people are stuck working for bosses and companies that mistreat them? Can’t you see that the American working class is being abused? Can’t you see that thirst, hunger, disease and poverty are inflicted upon a huge portion of the world’s population by the privileged and powerful? Isn’t that what the “Arab Spring” uprisings are about?

quote:

You claim that the actions of some few, who, unarguably, have failed to move beyond the most rudimentary of animal considerations, are indicative of 'human nature' in obliviousness to the majority who's instinct is more in tune with the concept of evolution, consciously or intuitively, either and both ways.


The long history of intra species bloodshed is a salient rebuttal against your contention that it has been the actions of only a few and that the rest, the great majority have moved on to some utopian evolutionary condition. If it was the few who held power and led the way for the tribe, it was the tribe who gave consent and support to the few. We cannot lay claim Sgt. Shultz’s “I knew nothing.” We cannot claim mass innocence. It was not only a few who took part in, countenenced, or profited from our Wars against Mexico and then Spain, the Japanese conquest of Korea and China, the transport and enslavement of africans, the decimation of the indigenous people of America, the Jewish Shoah, etc, to give just a few examples. Violence in one form or another is pervasive in the world and in our own society which is so fond of guns, and so vindictive in its dialogue. I ask you again to show me a time in the history of mankind when there has not been inter group conflict, violence or oppression. And show me today where competition is not the essence of a Capitalist society. We have moved on in style only.

quote:

To me, the great accomplishment of humans, despite academia's and the media's constantly hammering it into our heads otherwise, is that we not only survive, but progress beyond the aforementioned idolatry of Rome ( but you didn't even know that, did you? most do not), the focus and grossly misleading ascribing of 'civilization' to some particular turning of 'predation' to the rise of thereby, when in fact all those fables were and still are a staple of British and American 'convenient' understanding of things, with a large army of academics to 'back it up.' In case it escaped notice, hand in glove to the aspirations of the few, the very few, who would benefit in that regard.


I really do not understand your point here and would respond to a clarification and elaboration.

quote:

Fact of the matter is, even some natural predators display deep and abiding communal and social considerations towards each other that on some occasions seem to surpass that of modern day humans. OTOH, there is nothing in the scientific literature that convincingly convinces that humans of the last 200,000 years or so relied solely on predation of other animals at all. Modern day and older day studies abound of societies that hardly eat meat at all, some never, and have done so for thousands of years before some exogenous influence otherwise are there to be had, my own experience absence of such 'need' not being presented here as evidence.


The fact that societies passed through an agriculture phase does not mean they eschewed the eating of meat. Animal husbandry was a concomitant event. There were shepherds in them thar hills. Oh, I never denied that “natural predators display deep and abiding communal and social considerations towards each other” Nor did I ever suggest that humans failed to display communal bonding and affection. Please do not straw man me.
quote:

Let's delve into the 'predation' paradigm further, shall we?
I'm not going to waste my time if you're not up for it.


Absolutely open to an intelligent and courteous dialogue if you do not blur my point that the expression of tribal predation has moved on from its primitive stage to more sophisticated forms due of necessity to changing living space and technology. But It is still operative. Show me where I am wrong.






Edwynn -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/4/2011 9:45:34 AM)




You say this:


"Thirdly, I tried to point out that many people, maybe most are either so oppressed or so conformed to the rules of their society that they are the victims of quiet social violence, what Jules Feiffer referred to as “little murders.” Can’t you see that many people are stuck working for bosses and companies that mistreat them? Can’t you see that the American working class is being abused? Can’t you see that thirst, hunger, disease and poverty are inflicted upon a huge portion of the world’s population by the privileged and powerful? Isn’t that what the “Arab Spring” uprisings are about?"


Then you follow with this:


"The long history of intra species bloodshed is a salient rebuttal against your contention that it has been the actions of only a few and that the rest, the great majority have moved on to some utopian evolutionary condition."



Aside from your neglect in verification of this 'long history of intra species bloodshed' as being in greater numbers than 'the long history of many species lacking such history of bloodshed' ...

Which is it? Are the most of society, today or past, "victims" or themselves the practitioners and therefore the perpetrators? How can they be both? No argument from me that society can be 'bi-polar' at times, but that's quite a stretch.

As to this:

"If it was the few who held power and led the way for the tribe, it was the tribe who gave consent and support to the few."



Right. 

You delude yourself greatly in this regard.

The hundreds of thousands that stood and marched against the Iraqi invasion prior to the event, the numerous poles showing that the majority of Americans were against it, etc. Please. It was the media that gave their consent, however much that constitutes 'tribal consent' to the gullible.

And just to even entertain that notion, the issue at hand here seems to be congenital aggression, and not all would classify -passive assent- as being one and the same with own-initiative violent action against another, i.e., "aggression."

Hermann Göring was not an academic sociology expert, but then neither are you or I. But just to bring in some words from another that understood perhaps better than either of us how this works:

"Of course the people do not want war… But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."


Notice that Göring did not mention that the leaders are constantly having to fend off the 'natural intra-species blood lust' of the people in that exposition.



"Violence in one form or another is pervasive in the world and in our own society which is so fond of guns, and so vindictive in its dialogue."


However much violence and guns be a part of one particular society or country, you would do well to acquaint yourself with other societies and other countries, both present and past, where such is/was not so prevalent.


As to the question of any supposed inclination of modern humans towards predation: what do you see, what do you think, when you notice a rabbit? Granted, there are a few who want to shoot it, but a good many just see another critter hopping along. Do you want to chase it down and rip into it? No? Where did all that 'instinct of predation' go? I went for ten years with out any meat at all, one bite of fish, three slices of cheese, one egg, the whole ten years. Nothing to it. I eat meat occasionally now, when it's offered. No big deal there, either. I would no more tell others what to eat anymore than I would tell them what they should smoke or drink or not. Nor would I tell them how they should explain the actions that transpire in the world to themselves.


You find yourself at odds with the world. Welcome to the club. I do not need for myself the notion that 'we all deserve it,' as would be provided by the convenience of the notion you hold in regard as to putative 'human nature.' Neither would I cave in to considering myself a "victim."

I don't need to find excuses for any of what transpires in the world, any more than I need an excuse for being who I am. I know who I am, and the actions of some relatively few twisted individuals as some explanation for who I am or what everyday people are about is something that never even occurred to me at all outside of some folks needing that particular explanation for themselves, as brought to my attention here lately.



If it works for you, then it works.


I shouldn't trouble you any further with it.











vincentML -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/5/2011 7:53:46 AM)

quote:

Aside from your neglect in verification of this 'long history of intra species bloodshed' as being in greater numbers than 'the long history of many species lacking such history of bloodshed' ...


I did not compare the history of bloodshed within the human species to the history of any other species. Those are your words not mine.

quote:

Which is it? Are the most of society, today or past, "victims" or themselves the practitioners and therefore the perpetrators? How can they be both? No argument from me that society can be 'bi-polar' at times, but that's quite a stretch.


Depends on whether your group is acting as aggressor or is being oppressed. In the second case it is obvious all individuals are victims. At least for the duration of the aggression. One of the reasons for kinship in a group is mutual safety. In the first case people may give assent to their leaders in the aggression. Compliance may be active and participatory, it may be symbolic, or it may be just sheepish resignation.

Those who protest vigorously most often must resign from the group by their actions. They form a different social group or action group. The term “group” is not synonymous with “State.” They may do so by marching in parades to protest or they may commit acts of violence and rebellion against the governing group as the Weathermen did in the late 1970s, in which case they become outlaws. Sometimes, as happened recently in Tunisia and Egypt it seems, the rebellion succeeds.

quote:

As to this:
"If it was the few who held power and led the way for the tribe, it was the tribe who gave consent and support to the few."
Right.
You delude yourself greatly in this regard.

The hundreds of thousands that stood and marched against the Iraqi invasion prior to the event, the numerous poles showing that the majority of Americans were against it, etc. Please. It was the media that gave their consent, however much that constitutes 'tribal consent' to the gullible.


Your position is not supported by the Wiki article.

“A March 2003 Gallup poll conducted during the first few days of the war showed that 5% of the population had protested or made a public opposition against the war compared to 21% who attended a rally or made a public display to support the war.[6] An ABC news poll showed that 2% had attended an anti-war protest and 1% attended a pro-war rally. The protests made 20% more opposed to the war and 7% more supportive.[7] A Fox News poll showed that 63% had an unfavorable view of the protesters, just 23% had a favorable view.[7] According to Pew Research, 40% said in March 2003 that they had heard "too much" from people opposed to the war against 17% who said "too little".[8]
Some observers have noted that the protests against the Iraq war have been relatively small-scale and infrequent compared to protests against the Vietnam War. One of the most often cited factors for this is the lack of conscription.[9][10]”

quote:

And just to even entertain that notion, the issue at hand here seems to be congenital aggression, and not all would classify -passive assent- as being one and the same with own-initiative violent action against another, i.e., "aggression."


I addressed this earlier. You are confusing my characterization of the nature of our species with individual behaviors. There is always widespread variation within a population. A fundamental Darwinian concept. Furthermore, I have stated that aggression may take a variety of forms. It need not be violent.

quote:

Notice that Goring did not mention that the leaders are constantly having to fend off the 'natural intra-species blood lust' of the people in that exposition.


Goring makes my point for me. Most members of the pack are easily lead because they depend on the group for security. At the end of World War II German citizens were taken on tours of the death camps. The question was: How could they not have known? And of course the answer is: They knew!

Btw, I never used the term “natural intra-species blood lust.” That is your concept; not mine. Straw man again. Additionally, you should familiarize yourself with the history of the Weimar Republic and the pitched battles that took place in the streets of Berlin and Munich between the Communists and the Nazis, which lead to Hitler’s rise as a national figure.

quote:

However much violence and guns be a part of one particular society or country, you would do well to acquaint yourself with other societies and other countries, both present and past, where such is/was not so prevalent.


As far as I know there is no major society (Nation) that has not had a history of war and violence. You will be hard pressed to find any.

quote:

As to the question of any supposed inclination of modern humans towards predation: what do you see, what do you think, when you notice a rabbit? Granted, there are a few who want to shoot it, but a good many just see another critter hopping along. Do you want to chase it down and rip into it? No? Where did all that 'instinct of predation' go? I went for ten years with out any meat at all, one bite of fish, three slices of cheese, one egg, the whole ten years. Nothing to it. I eat meat occasionally now, when it's offered. No big deal there, either. I would no more tell others what to eat anymore than I would tell them what they should smoke or drink or not. Nor would I tell them how they should explain the actions that transpire in the world to themselves.


Again, the basic Darwinian concept of variation at play. Additionally, I very clearly laid out that predation takes many different forms in modern times. It need not involve physical violence. Financial predation is endemic to Capitalism. Racism, a form of predation and oppression, is still a major world problem in many ways.

Thank you for your courtesy.






PrunusKanzan -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/5/2011 9:17:57 AM)

Human nature is.... celebrating death. Is there ever really a valid reason to be happy that someone is dead? Especially when we are brainwashed to believed that it is for the love of country?



tweakabelle -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/5/2011 9:18:56 PM)

Perhaps this might be a good moment to review the evidence advanced by the various sides.

OTOH, there is an argument that "predation/aggression" is a genetically transmitted trait of human behaviour that can legitimately be regarded as fundamental to 'human nature'. To support this view, an interpretation of history has been advanced, an assertion that this trait is genetically transmitted (and therefore, presumably 'natural') and an assertion that this trait is prevalent among humans today are offered for consideration. Gang violence, and various current or recent wars, among other things, are mentioned to support this view (this interpretation is also contested by others here).

OTOH evidence that the vast majority of humans don't engage in 'predatory/aggressive' behaviour has been presented, evidence that species-specific human brain function co-relates to non-violent behaviours/traits has been advanced. An argument asserting the epistemological implausibility of the 'predation/aggression' claim has been advanced too. My reading is that, thus far, only the first of these three points has been contested by the pro-predation/aggression argument.

To sustain the case for 'predation/aggression', it would seem to me that, , the following is needed:
* an outline of how such a case might be epistemologically plausible (ie how such a claim might be possible within the boundaries of knowledge);
* details of the transmission mechanism whereby this trait is passed on, and proof of its causal nature. As the claim specifies genetic determination, details of the specific genetic factors, and how these genetic mechanisms cause 'predatory/aggressive' behaviour is required (if this condition can be satisfied, it would render the previous requirement unnecessary); and
* a coherent explanation of why the behaviour of the vast majority of humans is ignored and the behaviour of the minority who engage in 'predatory/aggressive' behaviour is accepted and given compelling status.

We might greatly simplify all that and posit that, at a minimum, if details of the transmission mechanism whereby this trait is passed on through the generations, and proof of its causal nature can be produced in a compelling fashion, the pro-predation/aggression case might at least be plausible. We could then review the argument in the light of the other requirements listed above.

Equally we might posit that, a failure to produce such evidence means the collapse of the pro-predation/aggression argument in its current form. The onus is on those making the pro-predation/aggression argument to produce (with appropriate references/support) such evidence and/or argument.

Personally I have grave doubts if such evidence is available (or for that matter, even possible). But I have no doubt that failure to produce such evidence means the collapse of the pro-predation/aggression case as unproven and possibly unprovable.

Over to you VincentML, and the best of luck to you! [:D]




vincentML -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/7/2011 6:25:57 AM)

You rig the game on two counts. First by demanding proof of causation from the relatively new science of molecular genetics, and secondly by claiming the impossibility of classifying human behaviour. Science does not offer 100% certainty. Science builds a model from empirical observations and theoretical assumptions. Thereafter the model is tested by null hypotheses held to a high degree of probability and if the model is lacking then adjustments are made. You have a skewed view of the scientific method.

My contention is that evidence can be gathered and causation inferred with proper caveats. A model can be constructed and i am willing to make the case but it seems too much of a bother in the face of your post modernist parameters. You will need to indicate greater receptability if we are to proceed with an interesting discussion.

Back to you, luv [:)]



tweakabelle -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/9/2011 9:56:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

You rig the game on two counts. First by demanding proof of causation from the relatively new science of molecular genetics, and secondly by claiming the impossibility of classifying human behaviour. Science does not offer 100% certainty. Science builds a model from empirical observations and theoretical assumptions. Thereafter the model is tested by null hypotheses held to a high degree of probability and if the model is lacking then adjustments are made. You have a skewed view of the scientific method.

My contention is that evidence can be gathered and causation inferred with proper caveats. A model can be constructed and i am willing to make the case but it seems too much of a bother in the face of your post modernist parameters. You will need to indicate greater receptability if we are to proceed with an interesting discussion.

Back to you, luv [:)]


You can present whatever evidence you feel is appropriate VincentML. I am not making any conditions on that - though I do reserve the right to review the evidence you advance, and if need be, criticise it.

Secondly, I am not the one claiming to classify human behaviour - you are. I am criticising that claim. As such the onus is upon you to make your case.

It not up to me to set the parameters nor am I seeking to do so. Nor does the validity of your case rest upon my acceptance of it or otherwise. I am saying that in order for you to establish your case you need to establish that whatever classification of human behaviour you are using is valid.

I'm not making any assertions about what human nature might be - you are. I am contesting your assertions on a number of grounds. It's up to you to prove your case. Obviously if you are unable to do that your claim fails in its current state.

That seems to me to put the ball back in your court. Good luck! [:D]



vincentML -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/10/2011 8:36:21 AM)

quote:

You can present whatever evidence you feel is appropriate VincentML. I am not making any conditions on that - though I do reserve the right to review the evidence you advance, and if need be, criticise it.


[:)] Fair enough tweakabelle. Here is my case and I await your critique so I can respond to it. I will note here that I am responding to the challenge of a genetic linkage and for the moment at least ignoring the p-m challenge of catagorizing human behaviour by simply saying as has been said previously about pornography: "If it looks like aggression it is aggression. I know aggression when I see it." Over to you then.

Further reading on the topic provides me fairly convincing evidence for a genetic linkage to aggression through the coding of testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and other androgens. The research shows a high correlation between these hormones and aggressive behaviour.

I am not sure if there are not some other chemical pathways as well because human infants often show aggressive behaviour, whether offensive or defensive, early on. “The frequency of physical aggression in humans peaks at around 2–3 years of age. It then declines gradually on average.[21] These observations suggest that physical aggression is mostly not a learned behavior and that development provides opportunities for the learning of self-regulation.” SOURCE

I would doubt there are high levels of androgens in infants, however, but It falls to the deniers of the genetic model to show a correlation between parental aggression and early infant aggression if the social model is to be accepted, i.e. if we are to believe that aggressive behaviour is learned.

Furthermore from the same source: “Gender is a factor that plays a role in both human and animal aggression. Males are historically believed to be generally more physically aggressive than females (Coie & Dodge 1997, Maccoby & Jacklin 1974), and men commit the vast majority of murders (Buss 2005). This is one of the most robust and reliable behavioral sex differences, and it has been found across many different age groups and cultures. There is evidence that males are quicker to aggression (Frey et al. 2003) and more likely than females to express their aggression physically (Bjorkqvist et al. 1994). When considering indirect forms of non-violent aggression, such as relational aggression and social rejection, some scientists argue that females can be quite aggressive although female aggression is rarely expressed physically (Archer, 2004; Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008).”

It may be argued that because of lower androgen levels female aggression is more easily socialized.

Studies of adopted children also support aggression linked to heredity. "One adoption study in Denmark[citation needed] found that adoptive siblings split into separate foster homes had a 12.9% concordance rate of crime and aggressive behavior. This study also showed correlations between biological parents who committed criminal activity and their children they gave up for adoption committing criminal activity. This seems to suggest that biological characteristics which increase the risk for criminal convictions and aggression are transmitted from biological parents to their offspring and increase risk for criminal convection. Though many believe[citation needed] that new technology is making twin and adoption studies seem less relevant they are still important in assessing the role of environmental factors versus genetic factors in such characteristics as aggression."
SOURCE

Hormones are prime candidates for the transmission of traits from gene to phenotype. Since genes provide the template for the manufacture of proteins and since hormones are included in that class of organic chemicals we can see the likelihood for a link in the transmission mechanism. Testosterone is one candidate: “Reports of changes in testosterone of young men during athletic events, which involve face-to-face competition with a winner and a loser, reveal that testosterone rises shortly before their matches, as if in anticipation of the competition. Also, one to two hours after the competitive match, the testosterone levels of the winners are high relative to those levels of the losers.[16]” SOURCE

Human children continue their aggressive behaviour throughout pre-pubescence. In play, clique formations, and bullying. But their aggression becomes much greater when sexual maturation sets in. It continues throughout their adult lives in one form or another. Studies have shown that criminal recidivism tapers off among men in their late thirties coincidental to the decline in testosterone levels. [citation needed]

Brain imaging studies have identified which parts of the brain are active during aggressive behaviour. In time further research will show the hormones and neuron receptors involved. Eventually this linkage will be traced back to specific gene clusters.

Genetic research involving sampling of genes in populations world wide shows few examples of very strong natural selection. The mechanism of evolutionary change “seems to require consistent environmental pressures over tens of thousands of years.” I am raising the glacial nature of evolutionary change to preempt any suggestion that the aggression gene of the primitive hunter has been easily extinguished. If anything, human history supports the reinforcement of the aggression trait. According to the research, at a minimum five thousand years of stable environment are needed to effect genetic change. SOURCE

So why, you ask, do large numbers of humans not show aggressive behaviour? This question is sophistic. It presumes an ephemeral truth.

The more valid question is: why is effective aggressive behaviour absent in so many?

The most obvious answer is that the phenotypical behaviour can be modified by environment just as an inherited phenotype for a physical attribute can be: i.e. height can be modified by nutrition. Testosterone levels are subject to situational influences, as we saw in the case above for athletes getting ready for a contest.

Our schools are great factories for taming aggression. We teach against aggressive behaviour at every age level. If not teaching against it we strive to channel it into team sports competition and organizational activities. Beyond schooling aggression deemed inappropriate is often punished in the job market. Corporations place great stress on team players. Physical aggression is punished while economic aggression is rewarded.

Social class structure and structural racism have been historic tools to: modify naked physical aggression; make it fail; or hide it from sight in Western societies. Tribal and family customs modify individual aggressors in much of the rest of the world.

We see a great deal of aggression in the under-developed nations and in our own. Particularly amongst people of colour. But also among whites in the United States predominantly, but not exclusively, in the rural South. However, it is more often failed aggression because it is stifled by privileged political class and lack of effective weapons, or aggression expressed as ineffectual criminal activities. Rebellions and protest against the political classes are ever present in our news stories. It is just silly and without foundation to say that the majority of people in the world are not prepared to act aggressively as their primitive ancestors did. It is more proper to say that most do not have the opportunity or fear the consequences. The world’s population is always on fire and it is not due to just the behaviour of a few. The genetic propensity for hostility is alive and well, and a natural characteristic of our species. Q.E.D. [:)]



















Kirata -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/10/2011 11:11:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

by simply saying as has been said previously about pornography: "If it looks like aggression it is aggression. I know aggression when I see it."

In his famous (or infamous) concurrance with the Jacobellis decision, Justice Stewart did not say what you have put in quotes above (not even substituting "pornography" for "aggression"). You're either making shit up or quoting your spinster aunt. But I know the quote you mean to call to mind. And it may interest you to know that Stewart later recanted, accepting that such a view is untenable.

It is still untenable.

K.





eihwaz -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/10/2011 12:09:17 PM)


If aggression is inherited, than so is the ability to self-regulate aggressive behavior in accordance with social cues.  For example: There are physiological mechanisms governing the production of androgens;  these mechanisms are ultimately connected to brain structures.  In order for androgens to have an effect, there must be receptors to them, which themselves incorporate multiple control points.  The locus of the semantics, so to speak, of androgen is in the recipient cells, which can implement complicated, nuanced responses.  Neural plasticity, presumably the basis for learned behaviors, including self-control, is also inherited.

One problem several other posters and I have with your position is that you're positing "tribal predation" as the predominant trait of humans.  Most of us would agree that aggression, competition, and a tendency to form groups are significant, essential human characteristics.  However, cooperation, self-reflection, morality, ability to form sophisticated concepts, and so on, are equally significant and essential.  A simple alternative, of greater utility, to the "tribal predation" notion might be a model locating human behavior along axes of competition and cooperation (which someone in behavioral sciences must have done, if it's so obvious that it occurred to me!).

However, I agree with tweakabelle (if I rightly understand her) that, while such models might have valid utility, they're also necessarily limited.  They might be useful for exploring the causes and contours of behavior, maybe even correct, but can never do so completely.  The phenomenon of human behavior might be too multidimensional, multilayered, and complex to ever be described by a unified model.

Another issue is the biological determinism implied by the notion that behavior is inherited.  My sense is that it's probably reasonable to propose that some very basic elements of a sort of behavioral language might be; so, too, propensities.  However, human behavior itself is an emergent phenomenon, arising out of a large complexity of factors and elements.

I would say that, if anything, what's inherited is the ability to manifest behavior.



Rule -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/10/2011 12:51:38 PM)

That was mostly a good and informative post, Vincent.

Yes, aggression is due to (various) genetic factors, and yes it can be modified to some degree by the environment (/ education / punishment).

I have developed a fairly sophisticated model of the human mind. However, beyond that - surface - model, in the abysmal depths of the mind, way beyond what is considered to be the subconscious, there is something utterly evil, at least in some persons, but I am inclined to suspect in (nearly) all people. It is best seen in children when the surface parts of the mind are still asleep, for then it can manifest most easily. It is my impression that when the surface parts of the mind mature, that this aspect from the abysmal depths of the mind is more suppressed.

I have seen it only twice in a relative and once in his son; I do know that it also was present in the father and grand-father of this relative. In the relative it lasted perchance half a minute. A stranger regarded me from his eyes, evil and dominant, a predator. I dared not move a muscle. Then my relative returned and did not give any indication that he knew what had happened to him. In his four year old son, who for several years after his birth was not a human being, but an animal, the experience lasted a full minute. His eyes changed, his face changed. A demonic creature looked at me from a demonic face and through demonic eyes. It hated all of humanity and it wanted all of humanity dead. I cannot express it in other words and the words that I use are by far insufficient. Its hatred was fierce and deep and extended to the borders of our universe. Then the human returned and his eyes and face returned to normal and he started to cry and ran away. If he had been my son, I would have killed him then and there, but he was not, so I had no right. He is out there now, adult, without any conscience whatsoever, without any compassion for the animals that he does kill, a petty thief. Fortunately, since about a year he has a relationship with a good woman.

My conclusion is that we are animals that as a species are evolving into civil beings. I expect that there are genetic and consequently phenotypic variations in this animal part in the abyss of our minds. In ordinary people this is covered up, but in some people it is closer to the surface of the mind and natural - and sexual - selection can through such people have an impact on the gene pools of our populations. In that context I find it a matter of concern that some women are strongly attracted to criminals.

I have seen this look of utter evil also in two adults. One I passed about twenty years ago on Dam square, where at the time there was quite a trade in hard drugs. He was standing still and rubbing his hands in extreme satisfaction. I was rather convinced that he was a major drugs overlord, and that he was playing the tourist at a place where his salesmen were earning him bundles of money.

Another I passed in a supermarket some years later. I cannot tell anything else about him. In both cases I am convinced that they somehow learned to cultivate and bring to the surface this demonic, utterly evil presence from the depths of their minds.



vincentML -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/10/2011 2:09:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

by simply saying as has been said previously about pornography: "If it looks like aggression it is aggression. I know aggression when I see it."

In his famous (or infamous) concurrance with the Jacobellis decision, Justice Stewart did not say what you have put in quotes above (not even substituting "pornography" for "aggression"). You're either making shit up or quoting your spinster aunt. But I know the quote you mean to call to mind. And it may interest you to know that Stewart later recanted, accepting that such a view is untenable.

It is still untenable.

K.


What's the difference who said it? Or who recanted? I readily admit I hijacked and creatively reformulated the quote to suit the purpose of my own narrative. So, if you are going to nit pick shit out of your ass at least have the decency to wipe it on your own drawers and leave my spinster aunt out of it. She was incidently a rather successful porn star in her day [;)]



vincentML -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/11/2011 6:26:34 AM)

quote:

If aggression is inherited, than so is the ability to self-regulate aggressive behavior in accordance with social cues.


Yes, we learn. I did not say otherwise. And I agree that neural plasticity is inherited. I cannot imagine how else it was acquired.

quote:

However, cooperation, self-reflection, morality, ability to form sophisticated concepts, and so on, are equally significant and essential.


As well as imagination, creativity, language, tool making, etc. But they all wrap around our core animal nature.

quote:

A simple alternative, of greater utility, to the "tribal predation" notion might be a model locating human behavior along axes of competition and cooperation


Both competition and cooperation are subsumed under the rubric of tribal or group predation/aggression. Historically, group structures have been hierarchal, so it is difficult to be clear as to how much cooperation was not coerced by power elites.

quote:

The phenomenon of human behavior might be too multidimensional, multilayered, and complex to ever be described by a unified model.


I see this as a fancy way to deny or distance ourselves from our essential animal nature. Just a secular alternative to insisting we have a soul while the other animals do not.

quote:

I would say that, if anything, what's inherited is the ability to manifest behavior.


The amoeba also inherited the ability to manifest behavior.

Thank you for your reply, eihwaz [:)]



vincentML -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/11/2011 6:29:30 AM)

quote:

My conclusion is that we are animals that as a species are evolving into civil beings. I expect that there are genetic and consequently phenotypic variations in this animal part in the abyss of our minds. In ordinary people this is covered up, but in some people it is closer to the surface of the mind and natural - and sexual - selection can through such people have an impact on the gene pools of our populations. In that context I find it a matter of concern that some women are strongly attracted to criminals.


Remarkable experiences, Rule. You raise the issue that begs a definition of the depths of human evil. What causes psychopathy? Why the serial killer?

The only disagreement I have is that we are evolving into civil beings. I look around and fail to see evidence to support that thought. Furthermore, the Scientific American article I cited described human evolution as mainly glacially slow and requiring maybe a minimum of 5000 years of stable environment for change. I do not see that we have had that.

Thank you for your experiences and your thoughtful comments, Rule.



Rule -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/11/2011 6:49:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Furthermore, the Scientific American article I cited described human evolution as mainly glacially slow and requiring maybe a minimum of 5000 years of stable environment for change.

That article is nonsense. The human species is the fastest evolving species on our planet. (The more evolutionarily advanced a species is, the faster it evolves.) Just ask any art historian.

It takes twenty generations to breed a new breed of animals: for humans that equates to 400 years.

Read Genesis and other mythologies: Before the Flood there lived an earlier race of humans. They were evil and the ruling pagan god decided to end that race and to start over with an improved race of human beings. Hence the Flood. Ever since our species has been breeding and evolving in expectation of achieving this goal of an improved species.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625