BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Mark Clark
Date: 01 May 03 - 10:57 PM

I found a first look at the problem with a reference to the book On Killing by David Grossman, a former military officer (Little, Brown, 1995). Grossman turns out to be a recognized expert in this field of study and is especially critical of many video games as sources of violent acts by children. Here is an interesting article by Grossman on the subject of violence.

Grossman's thesis is that humans posess a natural reluctance to kill members of their own species unless they've been psycologically conditioned to kill. If he is correct then my notions of violence as a genetically inherited response are probably out the window.

I'll try to find more on this subject from other sources.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: toadfrog
Date: 01 May 03 - 11:43 PM

I am not sure I understand why violence is "irrational" (as opposed to "unacceptable" or just "bad." As I understand it, rationality has no part in determining the end, just the means by which it is sought. So if the end is to make yourself feared and respected, or to be let alone in rough company, violence may very well be a rational means to that end. Depending on circumstances, like, are you on a tough street or at an academic convention. At the convention, physical violence would be self defeating.

Mark: Rhodes likewise believes soldiers don't normally want to kill or shoot to kill, and he cites a scholar who examined the muskets abandoned on the field in the Civil War, and found that a large number were still loaded, or even loaded many times. He concludes that soldiers loaded their muskets to look diligent, but did not fire them.
I have problems with that.

1. One assumes that soldiers who abandoned muskets were those not keen on shooting them. What about muskets that weren't abandoned?

2. The fact that a musket is loaded does not prove that it wasn't fired. And a person reluctant to kill could as well fire his musket in the air. And yet, it is notoriously true that those muskets were used with murderous accuracy. A whole lot of people were shot in the Civil War.

3. My father remarked that in World War II, a lot of soldiers never fired their rifles. He attributed that to a lack of visible targets. He said he remembered a speech by General Patton, who told the troops to think where they would be if they were Germans, and shoot there. After the speech, Patton asked him what he thought, and he said (very respectfully) he thought it was a fine idea, but doubted the troops would actually do as the General said. But, he said, he was wrong, and Patton was right, because after the speech there was a great deal more shooting, and also more effective shooting.

4. It seems to me Grossman is looking at things through a distorting ideological glass. I don't believe any amount of military training can make a person kill if he really doesn't want to. On the other hand, shooting pop-up targets might just convey the idea of shooting where there is movement, even if no clear view of a person or object. I find it extremely hard to believe that shooting at pop up targets will overcome even the weakest moral reluctance to kill.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 02 May 03 - 12:43 AM

As I understand it, rationality has no part in determining the end, just the means by which it is sought.

The really irrational person has irrational ends, at least n the short term -- the desire to destroy has become generalized. There may be a deeper end which is somehow good, such as the desire to survive a situation which happened long ago. But I wouldn't say that ends cannot be irrational as well as means. People sometimes have low level insistent little drives to dominate others, for example -- and while you cvould argue that they are trying to acheive long term survival (a good end) through the means of dominating others (an irrational solution in many instances) it gets kind of chicken-eggy there -- you could equally well say they choose to dominate others (a bad end) thorugh the various means of overwhelming, undermining, intimidating, etc (bad means). Guess it depends on where you draw the scale. I have a strong sense that there is a lot of rationality and goodness buried in the most anti-social individual, but sometimes it is very hard or impossible to reach. That's just my opinion.

The end of making yourself feared by others is an irrational one because any experience with people will inform you that those who fear you also dislike you and will try to get even with you, sooner or later, for frightening them. It is also irrational because the same purpose-- for example, security among people, or esteem from others -- can better be served by merit, communication, and helping. Those are therefore more rational answers to the same equation because they acheive more good results across a wider spectrum. Diplomacy trumps war for the same reason -- it does less harm, usually.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: toadfrog
Date: 02 May 03 - 11:36 PM

Amos and Mark: Rhodes would respond that people who say violence is "irrational" usually have led sheltered lives. Of course, I don't know either of you, so I won't characterize your backgrounds. For a long time I personally have associated almost entirely with civilized people who do not regard violence as an option. I cound not win their regard by showing I was dangerous. (Even if I were.) I could not obtain any of the things I want by using violence. Also, I have no particular talent or bent for that kind of thing.

But when I was a kid, and when I was in the Army, I was often in close, prolonged and unavoidable contact with rougher types. I heard and saw things that left a lasting impression. And I know that there are worlds out there where things work differently from our own middle-class milieu. There are environments where the assertions in Amos's last paragraph simply don't apply. And in the past, before we had ubiquitous police and law courts, this was true just about everywhere. Absent cops and lawyers, people settled disputes with knives. I don't know anybody today I can even imagine sticking someone with a knife, but they used to do it all the time.

And there are even a couple people who contribute to this Forum who are apparently only impressed by superior force. Not to name any names.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 03 - 02:57 AM

I do not think violence is irrational as a remedy to certain situations. However, opting to settle issues with violence is less rational than using other means because it does more harm and less good. There are people for whom the only choice is to use force,, even if not violence and there are times when non-violent practices lead to personal annihilation. However you are talking in such instances about situations that are already deeply involved with degrees of insanity.

Violence is almost always less rational than other means of control or persuasion. That doesn't mean it's always avoidable, eh?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 03 May 03 - 01:20 PM

Amos-There are many situations where violence is the best, or even only, answer. These usually result from other's irrational actions. Sometimes fear is a valuable tool. It is better to be loved than feared, but it is safer to be feared than loved.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 May 03 - 03:45 PM

Violence can quite often make sense as a way to achieve something, and it's possible to understand why in certain circumstances a capacity for violence has survival value.

What is harder to understand is where cruelty fits in, especially the kind of cruelty that doesn't seem to obtain any advantage, over and above whatever satisfaction is felt by the person.

For example, I was just reading a really vicious and nasty post on another thread directed at a young person who had done nothing whatsoever to deserve it, other than write an essay that someone else had posted on another website. And that set me thinking about other examples of similar gratuitous nastiness, some types of vandalism, for example.

Where is the survival value that can explain the capacity and appetite for that kind of thing?

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 03 - 08:21 PM

t is better to be loved than feared, but it is safer to be feared than loved.

Terribly sorry, but IMO this is an untenable proposition. People who fear you will destroy you -- if they fear you too much to do so explicitly they will do so covertly.

People who loveyou may cause you great pain from folly or oversight or misinterpretation, but they won't seek to destroy you.

At best the notion that it is safer to be feared than loved, in my opinion, qualifies as an irrational dictum.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 03 May 03 - 09:25 PM

It is based on the idea that those who love you now may cease to love you, and you will lose that control over them. One cannot force love, but fear can be enforced.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Doug_Remley
Date: 04 May 03 - 01:11 AM

Mark is absolutely correct in his reference to "On Killing". Throughout history, apparently, it has been difficult to force the common man (usually the larger % of "Armies")to take another man's life in Judeao/Christian cultures. Often NCO's must literally force their men to aim and fire. Often it is embarrassment in face of their brothers-in-arms that prevails, or the outright fear of death in the face of an overwhelming attack that forces response, and then often men dry-fire empty magazines. A Sergeant's job is not to participate singly, but to monitor his men assuring applicable defense or attack. Culture defines levels of acceptable violence. Poor leadership allows excesses.

I have no clue as to why some cultures are devastatingly violent. I think that in evolutionary terms we are but the blink of an eye past hunter-gatherer groups that defended, or attacked, good feeding grounds. I read somehere that man did not really achieve consciesness until about 5,000 years ago, but had become a hive-animal having recently (10,000 years ago)tamed goats and dogs. With that form of living an altruistic response (preservation of species, or group) was paramount.

Nowadays some cultures hold esteem for killing your father's enemy and his children, so they eventually will not become your son's enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 03 - 08:46 AM

It's a common experience, when people who ask their fathers if they ever killed anyone when they were in the army, for them to say "I hope not".

And firing squads have always had the practice of not having all the rifles loaded with live ammunition.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Peg
Date: 04 May 03 - 11:10 AM

McGrath, as for why people engage in destructive or cruel behavior designed to hurt others they could not possibly have any beef with (vandalism, cruel put-downs etc.) it strikes me this sort of "bully" behavior (for it is very childish) also stems from fear: the bully strikes out to make a name for himself, to draw attention to himself for being tough enough or bold enough to do the nasty thing. If he vandalizes in secret, well the evidence is still there on the wall or tombstone or church door, for all the world to see. This pumps them up, makes them feel important. Picking on someone who can't defend themselves, while most of us would think this very unsportsmanlike (for lack of a better word) and unfair, the bully probably sees it as his duty to do so, because everyone else is too "afraid" to do it...Bullies of this type don't feel like they measure up, they are usually outcasts of the worst sort, and most likely have some painful past experiences with rejection by loved ones, or betrayal by same. My two cents, anyway, having observed a lot of bullies in my day...

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: *daylia*
Date: 04 May 03 - 11:44 AM

Mark, thank you for posting Grossman's interesting article! Along with his thought-provoking analysis of the biological roots of violence in the human mid-brain, and the purpose/methods of military/police training, he offers very valuable insight into the explosion of violent behavior occurring among young people in developed nations over the last several decades.

I found his views on the effect of televised/media violence among very young children most revealing, ie."Our children watch vivid pictures of human suffering and death, and they learn to associate it with their favorite soft drink and candy bar, or their girlfriend's perfume.

After the Jonesboro shootings, one of the high-school teachers told me how her students reacted when she told them about the shootings at the middle school. "They laughed," she told me with dismay. A similar reaction happens all the time in movie theaters when there is bloody violence. The young people laugh and cheer and keep right on eating popcorn and drinking pop. We have raised a generation of barbarians who have learned to associate violence with pleasure, like the Romans cheering and snacking as Christians were slaughtered in the Colosseum."

Chilling stuff! And I've often noticed, with great dismay, the difference in attitudes toward/acceptance of violence between today's teens/young adults and my own cohort of the 'peace-and-love-stricken' 60's and 70's. This is one of the issues I was hoping to address in the precursor thread "Violence is the American Way?", but it got buried in the backlash provoked by my unintentionally confrontational first post/thread title (sorry about that to everyone!) So thanks very much for bringing it up again here!

If televised violence is the primary source of increasing violence in developed nations, it's certainly not difficult to find the remedy - Turn the d*** thing off! Refuse to support the sponsors of violent shows, and let them, the media moguls and your children know exactly why you're doing it! And that's just two easy solutions off the top of my head, which I'm sure a great number of concerned parents have been doing for a long time now. So it certainly can't be the whole solution though...

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 04 May 03 - 12:56 PM

While Grossman presents strong evidence, there are equally strong arguments against the idea that our brutality is a recent phenomenon. In Jared Diamond's book The Third Chimpanzee, he quotes studies showing that in pre-civilized societies, murder is the single greatest cause of death in males. The fact that the first example drawn on to show our modern barbarity is nearly two thousand years old shows that it is hardly a recent change. Humans have reveled in violence against others from time immemorial. Ancient sacrifice rituals, gladiatorial matches, autos-de-fe, contact sports; there is really no end to the number of examples. I think that the only conclusion is that humans are innately violent. Whether it evolved as a self-defense mechanism, a way to ensure the elimination of rivals, or even an accident of neural wiring, we are now by our nature potential killers, with or without cultural encouragement.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 03 - 01:02 PM

I would submit that all television and movies do is   re-activate forces already at work in the psyche, stirring them up and reactivating them in ways that cannot be predicted.

The thread title is inaccurate because, as mentioned above, there are occasions when extremes of force are the rational solution. The thread was aimed more at the roots of inappropriate violence.

Turning the television off is like quitting cigarettes for some people -- disconnecting from a source of toxic addiction which is being pushed on you by heavyweight commercial forces. Seems simple enough, eh? But like cigarettes,   those within the addiction have a very different perspective than those without. I watch television once or twice a year, aside from selected rental videos. I just won't get into it --becauseit has harmful effects on my cognitive processes. It is a corrosive influence, in my opinion, not just because it ooften glroifies violence, but because it glorifies other htings I don't want to bringinto my life like intentional stupidity, bizarre dramatization, and robotic reactionary mindlessness being substituted for thought.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 03 - 09:29 PM

I'd need to see some pretty strong evidence before believing that murder was main cause of death among males in "pre-civilised societies", and that evidence would be pretty hard to gather. That's quite a sweeping statement, especially given the wide variety of societies that would presumably be included in that category, and the range of ways in which it is possible to die without being murdered.

I haven't read the book in question, but I'd be very surprised if Diamond would claimed to quote "studies showing that in pre-civilized societies, murder is the single greatest cause of death in males". I'd have thought that at most he would have cited studies which suggested that, in some "pre-civilised societies", this may have been the case.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 04 May 03 - 10:00 PM

McGrath-You're right, I over-generalized, but the societies where the study was conducted indicated that murder was the overwhelming cause of death for males, and other anthropological evidence suggests that those were not isolated cases.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: toadfrog
Date: 04 May 03 - 10:09 PM

A serious problem with Grossman's article is its premise. It appears that recently the violent crime rate has decreased. The FBI says, at THIS LOCATION that it decreased, and the FBI is not known for minimizing the crime rate. The Census Bureau likewise says the homicide rate fell consistently in the 1990's. CLICK HERE In that time, television fare did not improve, and the tone of society did not get better, or so anyone would notice.

In the United States, violent crime is consistently higher in the South than elsewhere. White southerners are more violent than white northeners. Black southerners are more violent than black northeners. Rural and urban are likewise not the key. Suggesting tradition is an important factor. Note also, violent crime goes down when the times are good. The times are likely to get bad in the near future, and I betcha crime will go up again.

But the amount of personal, or criminal, violence in Westen nations is much lower today than it was a hundred years ago, and a mere shadow of what it was 500 years ago. Wars are a little harder to calculate, but I doubt the level of savagery today is higher than in some early better time. Read, sometime, an account of the Wars of Religion.