BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans

Subject: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 09:49 PM

You may be aware that a lengthy thread has recently run through these parts hissing and spitting, about whether or not American culture builds in an appetite and propensity for violence in real life.

You can find that thread over here if you wish, and it is an interesting study on the relationship between communication, violence, and personal attacks of a verbal sort.

This thread is offered as an open discussion on what the real factors are that lead to the kind of violence that shows up in so many places -- in American schools and Congolese jungles and Ecuadorian mountains and the deserts of Algeria. I doubt their is any other species that is as liberal at wasting its own kind. I know other primates have gang-wars sometimes, and I don't even want to think about the blood that gets spiled between warring ant colonies, but our version certainly is the loudest.

Where does it come from, and what are the alternatives that could actually be considered to them--are there remedies that might really work? Does this much intra-species violence have any value to the species, or the relations among species?

Your opinions are welcome.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Peg
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 11:33 PM

I think there are so many facets to this discussion that it is difficult to know where to begin. I am not prepared at the moment to discuss violence in human history, but I would be willing to get the ball rolling discussig urban violence, or violence against women...

Some observations: that very contemporary phenomenon known as "road rage" fascinates me. The sorts of things that piss people off when they are behind the wheel are really rather hard to quantify or categorize because everyone is different. Some hate waiting for a slpit second after the light turns green; others hate being behind someone who doesn't use signals. What I really love is the suited business man in the huge SUV with kids in the back cussing a blue streak at someone who has just cut him off (or soem other perceived "wrong"). One wonders what sort of drivers his children will grow up to be...

But one interesting permutation of this phenomenon I have noticed in Boston (where pedestrians are not any better at obeying the rules than drivers, yet are much more at risk) is the tendency for drivers of cars to get upset at and violent towards the pedestrian they nearly run over in the street!

As for WHY road rage occurs; I think that our increasingly car-oriented culture is partly to blame, as opposed to the simple explanation that people are just getting more angry, impatient or ornery in general. Cars are now bigger and more state of the art than ever before. Suburban communities are not constructed so that people can easily walk to a corner store for a quart of milk, etc. Kids are no longer expected to walk to scholl if it's more than a couple of blocks (and sometimes not even that). Seems everyne is afraid the kid is gonna get snatched, or else the kid is too damn lazy to walk. I lived across the street from my elementary school walked a mile to my junior high, and 3/4 of a mile to my high school every day. Now, it seems like more kids get rides than take the bus or walk.

When I watch television for more than an hour on any major network, at least HALF the commercials are for cars. Cars are now made that include DVD players! This strikes me as not only nonsensical but dangerous. What's wrong with having the kids look out the window or listen to music or a book on tape in their headphones, if they're bored? Car culture means people think of their cars as fortresses. And I do think driving a lot is not healthy for the psyche. Let's not even mention the idiots who think it's advisable to talk on the phone while driving.

Because the car is seen as another body appendage, one feels empowered to behave as one will, even though these vehicles are subjet to rigorous laws of conduct for the drivers/owners. People also feel invincible or invulnerable in these fortresses, particularly the big bad-ass gaz-guzzling ones...so intimadating other drivers or pedestrians is almost a god-given right granted when one makes the first monthly payment. People scream, swear, gesticulate rudely, sing aloud and ruminate madly in their cars; as has been said, cars give you audio but not video privacy (the opposite is true of a tent while camping). For some individuals, allowing one's thought to wander as they will only succeeds in justifying their anti-social and in many cases quite harnful or dangerous behavior behind the wheel. I consider this an insidious kind of violence which most car-owners would not most likely agree with, because to them the car is simply an extension of their person...

I have not owned a car in years and I sure as hell don't miss it...I am very fortunate to live in a city where owning a car is almost a liability unless you are wealthy enough to have your own parking spot and pay Boston insurance premiums. Half my friends don't have them. We all have great "road rage" stories which, for us, usually means "crosswalk rage" perpetrated by drivers who have almost murdered us blithely while we were crossing the street...and usually in accordance with the nearest traffic light or stop sign.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:01 AM

I can see why trying to use a honking chunk of steel and plastic and explosions as an alter-ego could drive ya kinda mad.

Did people go crazy on the subject of bigger, stronger, faster, roomier horses? Is this an extension of the Arthurian lists? I am mounted, therefore I lance others?

Or is it just a desperate effort to remedy a tiny little self esteem? :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:25 AM

I am mounted, therefore I lance others... Nice one A!

My take on it is... Really cool car, crappy driving conditions. Remember when driving was fun? Now we gotta go faster 'cause we're running late, and gridlock is a twenty-four hour affair. It is frustrating to have a car that will go nicely at 100 MPH, in stop and go... EVERY DARN DAY! Mass transit will be our savior!

Violence. Hmmmmmmm. Just say no. ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Peg
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 01:54 AM

well, since you're talking about self-esteem, that may well be at the root of a LOT of violent behavior. People with low self-esteem probably feel threatened by more situations than people with a healthy level of self-esteem. Feeling threatened makes people lash out or act out in a variety of ways. Some do so in aggressive fashion; some turn on the charm. Some hide their fear well; others have to leave the room or situation immediately, or act rashly to change things.

I once read that anger is the desire to change the situation immediately.

Our culture tends to have an unhealthy relationship with anger. It's either not appropriate to exress it, or people are encouraged to express it in inappopriate ways...should we blame the talk shows? The church (for instilling the concept of unsurmountable sin in ordinary humans)? the schools? or the typical contemporary parent who is too self-involved or busy to properly discipline their kids? I see a lot of bratty out-of-control spoiled kids out there, and it does seem this is way more common than it was even a decade ago. What has happened? if some of these kids do not get a serious smack in the head before they turn 18 they will turn into spoiled, self-centered, whiny-assed adults who can't deal with any disappointment no matter how small...

I am thinking of the soccer games where it's just unbearable if the kid's team loses. Fights break out between parents and referees. One man DIED because a dad from the opposing team (these were parents at a kids' game) beat on him so hard. When did parents start needing so badly for their kids to win, that they feel the urge to fight when things don't go their way? Are they living vicariously through their kids? Are they reliving their own traumas of inadequacy from childhood? are they unable, or unwilling, to tell their kids that life is tough sometimes, and that means you lose the game once in a while (or more often, if your team sucks)...?

Competition at all costs, winning at all costs, is not healthy. Parents have to compete to get their kids into the "right" schools almost since birth...and push and push them to make sure they get there. Seems every kid these days is being forced to be "gifted and taleneted" even when they aren't (I see the results of this every day in my college classes, believe me; kids who think they deserve the world on a plate when they can barely read or write, who consider themselves great artists when their ideas and work are banal and completely unoriginal, mainly because they can't be bothered to even read or watch the great classics of film or literature...I fear even a simple reference to The Great Gatsby or The Wasteland would be lost on them...

is this is the fault of a failed public school system? An overall decline in literacy? A growing lack of interest in culture/books/arts?

I think if more people spent more time reading books we'd be a less violent culture generally...now if only our brainless leaders would also do the same...

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 02:01 AM

"... the tendency for drivers of cars to get upset at and violent towards the pedestrian they nearly run over in the street!" Peg, I'm not sure how this is linked to aggression and violence we're discussing- but your statement reminds me of one certain thing: When a driver gets upset and violent toward the pedestrian they nearly ran over, they're reacting out of fear. The jolt of adrenalin that hits you in a split second when you discover you have almost hit someone can translate into instant rage. Maybe especially so when the pedestrian seems blissfully unaware of his own stupid culpability or blows off the driver's anger.

So, if I take this thought a little farther, it appears to me that fear is in some way involved with the anger and pent up violence we're wondering about.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Mudlark
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 02:33 AM

Human anger and violence long predates autos and their ills. I think it has something to do with the way our separate brains communicate, the idea that somewhere between lizard brain and the more evolved human brain there are some glitches. The latest brain, the really smart one capable of thinking up all these incredible ways of bashing others of the species, should be smart enough to know there's no end to it, once started...like the centuries old tribal feuds. But that's where the lizard brain takes over...sees things very elementally...kill or be killed, bash or be bashed. And once the evolved brain has thought up a catapault...of course the lizard brain is going to use it. And certainly fear is one of those blind triggers that gets the lizard brain going.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Peg
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 02:36 AM

sounds about right, Ebbie...by the way, I was also thinking of those instances when the driver gets angry at the pedestrian they almost creamed in situations where the DRIVER is completely at fault...have seen it a hundred times. Pedestrian is in crosswalk; driver ignores stop sign or red light, nearly hits pedestrian; pedestrian complains at nearly being killed; driver goes ballistic on pedestrian. Which is why I related this to the car-culture-breeds-violence thing...that sense of entitlement. But your comment that there is fear and adrenalin involved is also very apt.


mind you, in Boston a lot of pedestrians do dumb things (not waiting for the green light to cross) and I think this is just as bad as drivers not obeying the rules...each behavior exacerbates the other, as far as I can tell...

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 03:08 AM

I think we have what is known as "culture lag." Our population has grown to the point that we are crowded all the time; our cities are bursting at the seams; our schools have overcrowded classrooms, etc., etc., etc.

Culture lag results from the culture not adjusting quickly enough to changed circumstances. So our cities are still primarily the way they used to be when populations were smaller; our transit systems haven't changed enough to accommodate the greatly increased traffic; a lot of our children still go to schools that were built to accommodate much fewer students, etc.

So we are all on top of each other, causing pressure, stress and temper -- we need our space.

Until our cities catch up with the population, in terms of infrastructure primarily, I think violence may continue to be a problem.

Just an opinion. Don't hit me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 03:59 AM

Fear & anger are often part of the same thing. If you run away from a threat it's fear; if you run toward it, it's anger, and you decide which it is after you see what you did. Judging by myself.

Don't know how that applies to anger from frustration.

And violence is not always connected to anger, sometimes it's a tactic.

Clint

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 04:19 AM

Not a single comment here that isn't relevant! So many things.......

I think we can probably trace the origins of human violence to our earliest carnivorous roots. The hunter/gatherer killed another "something" for food as had other species before him. No matter how you slice it (no pun intended), killing is a violent act. As we continued to evolve and grow, we began to develop the human brain over the previous reptilian and mammalian brain (as mentioned before) which made us more social but also rationalized killing as a necessary part of living. We may well have gone through a period where we rationalized that since killing solved the food problem, it was an acceptable means of solving other problems as well.

One thing for certain, the idea that a violent act could solve a problem popped up somewhere along the line. As our brains grew and cultures rose and fell, we tried to move to a higher level. But once the thought is there, it is always there, just as the reptilian brain is always there as well.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Grab
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 08:14 AM

A ways back, it certainly did have value. Europe lost its roaming gangs of bandits ages back, but America still had them until more recently. Maybe this is why Europeans are less likely to be wedded to the idea of guns for "self-defence" - it's been longer since we needed them, so it's been kind of "bred out" of the society.

Anyway, until recently you needed to defend yourself against violence from outside. Humans have always formed groups, and when your group has resources and another group doesn't, your group must be able to defend those resources. Sharing would be nice, but generally the result of that would be that both groups starve, so selfishness is reinforced. And even within the group, the high-status people get more than the rest, so there's internal competition as well. But there also needs to be co-operation within the group, so a child's upbringing has to balance making them eager to prove themselves whilst not screwing everyone else up. It's difficult to say how much of this is genes (physically inherited) and how much is memes (taught consciously or unconsciously by those around us).

I think this is where the car thing comes in. I think we're starting to regard "those in the car" as "our group", and "those outside the car" as "the opposition". If you feel a connection with other road users then you're less likely to have this concept - truckers rarely cut up other truckers, for instance, because they have the concept of them being "one group" and so will co-operate. Car drivers though have little connection with other road users, and the increased isolation inside larger, more enclosed, more self-sufficient cars will not improve this.

Interestingly, in Mediterranean countries like France and Greece, drivers tend to be more nuts than any Brit/American. However, I believe this is more in the nature of "jockeying for position amongst our group" rather than "fighting an opposing group". So although they'll all try to beat each other to the lights, it's not in the same league as some Americans/Brits, where a bad drive to work spoils their whole day or where they haul off and beat someone over the head. Maybe I'm generalising here - dunno.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 08:44 AM

It seems to me that many drivers have a "bubble of unawareness" surrounding them, as they blithly drive along at 10 or 15 miles above the speed limit, changing lanes without signalling and talk on their cell phones or to their driving companions (or both at the same time). For me, driving in the West, where traffic rules are basically unenforced, has required a refresher in defensive driving.

On the other hand, road rage is pretty uncommon since this kind of driving is the norm here in Albuquerque. We did have an odd case about two weeks ago...a pedestrian apparently took issue at the behavior of a driver, followed him into a copy shop near the University, and shot him. No permanent damage done.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 09:00 AM

catspaw49-I hate to bring dissent into this peacable discussion, but I have to disagree with you about meat eating being the source of violence. Omnivores living in large groups, as early humans did have much more violent interactions between each other than prey animals. Most of the skeletal evidence (dental wear especially) indicates that meat was not a significant source of calories for humans until the Mesolithic. Prior to that, our violence was mostly directed towards each other. Look at studies of violence in chimpanzees, our closest genetic and behavioral relatives. They kill members of other troops, and on occasion infants of their own troop, far more frequently than they hunt. I think that violence is a more defensive than aggressive reaction. You are afraid of something, and you kill it. Nowadays, you are afraid of something, but you can't see it to kill (too many intangible worries), and since the need to lash out is still there, you grab a handy target.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 09:06 AM

Could be.....Suits me as well. The point had nothing to do with eating meat or whatever, but simply that violent behavior was a norm in many aspects of human life, as well as other life forms before. Not being there at the time, I have no idea as to the exact pinpointing of the where and when. So whatever you or anyone else says is fine by me!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 09:18 AM

I'm inclined to doubt whether it's correct to assume that the kind of things that we are likely to include under "violence" are mainly a hangover from a primitive more violent world.

Generally speaking the evidence seems to indicate that hunter gatherers lead relatively un-violent lives, especially as regards other hunter gatherers, but even when it comes to killing for food, in the sense that this often tends to be associated with rituals of respect and apology towards the creatures killed.

Major violence towards other human beings, and the kind of unfriendliness and nastiness that has been mentioned so far, seem to be associated much more with relatively advanced societies. The Twentieth Century was, I'd, say the most violent century we have had so far, especially when the slaughter on the roads is added in, and the signs seem to be that the 21st century could well turn out even worse.

I'd suggest that the reasons for this are likely to be the ones mentioned - people crowding in on each other, so that as a protective mechanism we draw our boundaries between our in-group ("us") and the rest (them") ever tighter. On top of that there are technological changes that can amplify our anger and make it lethal. (Assault rifles instead of fists or even knives, cars instead of Shanks's pony.)

Though in fact a lot of the violence we see is probably not so much to do with anger, but rather with power. Wars don't normally happen because people get angry. They start for quite other reasons, and then the anger is built up to keep things going.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 09:33 AM

An interesting tangent from the esteemed R.L. Stephenson:

WEAKNESS

"You cannot run away from weakness;
you must some time fight it out or perish;
and if that be so, why not now, and where you stand?"

                  Robert Louis Stevenson

It seems clear to me there are two kinds of violence. One is the sort which is appropriate to current facts, such as when breaking down a door in order to save someone in a burning building, or defending a child against a mad dog.

The other, which is the kind we are probably speaking of mostly here, is the sort that brings to bear incomprehensible calculations that have no relevance to the present facts: one's own history of receiving violence in the past, or a personal predilection for being terrified of people with green eyes, or a deep and chronic hatred of some kind. There is no telling what goes on in the mental process of a person swept up in this sort of violence -- he or she is trying to cure some long-lost problem, which he can't even reach to understand!

IF the "reasons" for a violent act are not in the present, they must be coming from the past, and therefore be included erroneously, having little or no rational connection with the matter at hand.

Of course, this doesn't include biochemical factors such as drugs and alcohol, which just complicate the picture enormously.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Sam L
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 09:43 AM

Like everything else in life, I have a theory about road rage, made out of the dust bunnies in my head. It's not really about road rage per se, but about modes and comfort levels. I think that when Superman is at home, and wants to hand a picture on his wall, he has to find his hammer. He's in his Clark Kent mode, and it's more trouble to shift into Superman mode, and push the nail into the wall, than to stay in Clark Kent mode and find the hammer. Some work is very hard, until you get so dirty and sweaty you just don't care--then you shift modes, it's easy and fun.

So, what I think happens is that cars become more and more a personal comfort zone, with cd players, comfy seats, quiet engines, stillness in motion, and it lulls us into our wimpiest, most infantile mode. They're like that quality in depression-era musicals, that fantasy of a frictionless world. Then that mode and that fantasy are cantilevered against reality, and serious responsibility, and having to wait, judge, excercise control and caution. The frustration of the fantasy sparks rage.

   This theory may be partly born out by a study cited in risk homeostasis, of a European country--Switzerland?--that changed driving lanes. Everyone expected accidents to increase, and they decreased. People apparently stayed in a greater state of awareness. So we could switch lanes every four years or so, to prevent accidents. Risk homeostasis is the tendency of things to keep going amiss at the same rate despite saftey measures. Where ever you set the limits, people push them. The measures to prevent an old accident introduce new variables to create new accidents.

To prevent road rage, maybe we could design seats to kick you in the butt at random intervals, douse you with soot, pond water and ice, and stuff like that. And people could use turn-signals, and slow down where kids play. That pisses me off.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 10:01 AM

So -- Fred -- you're saying that violence is a sort of dramatization of infantile frustration? Ya reckon if we put warm boobs in the center of the steering wheels it would help? Address the problem at source?

Sorry for being facetious. Good theory, even including the dust-bunnies!! Where do you get them thangs?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: mack/misophist
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 10:26 AM

Please bear with me. Prose is not my best skill. If you like to read anthropology, you probably know that there is a cultural level in which people live as isolated individuals or in single family groups. At this level, the commonest cause of death is murder. This is not prejudice; it's well documented. Tribes and villages evolve crisis resolution customs that keep them from destroying themselves. But a man who has only seen 3 or 4 strangers in his life will not look upon them as sources of news and entertainment; he will will see them as dangerous creatures that must be closely watched and killed if they do something unexpected.

Our western world is not like that, quite. However, under the influence of adrenalin, I think that a stranger - looking different, dressed differently, speaking differently, smelling different may often be seen an a threat rather than as another person. This helps explain why the level of violence is so much lower in homogenous cultures; there's less strangeness to adapt to.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 11:00 AM

Xenophobia is the root of violence? But why? I cans ee why your explanation would explain less violence in homogenous cultures -- the expectations are stable, the agreements are predictable. But going among other kinds of people does not uniformly lead to violence -- it varies wildly with the individuals involved.

Ya know, one thing that stands out about violence when it is inappropriate to the circumstances is that it never occurs in the presence of full understanding between participants. It may be that the probability of violence is a perfect inverse of the degree of understanding. If that is so, then the factors which cause violence would be the same factors, generally, as those which prevent or impede understanding.

Some of these which come to mind are lies (false information), enforced information (authoritarian data), the suppression of communication in various ways, the absence of information, alterations of facts concerning "when, how, where and who" in events, and the distortion of importances on arbitrary grounds.

This ties in with the notion of erroneously included past data entering the equation, mentioned above.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 11:19 AM

I dunno' Amos.....I can understand Xenaphobia as a source of violence.....The bitch scares me to death!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: harpgirl
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 11:47 AM

...the strength of an individual's self-esteem (which depends on mastery of things) does predict how injured they might be by the everyday slings and arrows of narcissistic injury.

Being ignored in a store might enrage one individual and not another depending on how secure they are in their sense of okayness.

What we value the most about our self-definition is also more vulnerable to slights.

I think road rage is a combination of aggressiveness and narcissistic injury. We want to get the best place on the road and we may perceive another aggressive driver as deliberately trying to injure us in their pursuit of the best place on the road. Violence which may occur as a result of narcissistic injury is an attempt at redress. Revenge is an interesting issue in American life. We give mixed messages about it. In many cultures it is considered appropriate. Here it is discouraged sometimes and lauded at other times. Very confusing for many people.

Getting mad at pedestrians seems to be a function of warding off the terrifying notion that your bad driving or their carelessness will result in a death which would affect most of us in the self esteem area. Thus, it is a potential narcissistic injury and something which might make us temporarily angry.

A powerful antidote to potential injury to our self-esteem is our cognitve powers. The attribution we give to an act which may be potentially injurious to our self esteem can calm us and help us to not get angry and potentially violent.

The rage we see in teens, in which lethal actions occur seems to be a combination of severe narcissistic injury, fluctuating self-esteem, conditioning, and cultural sanctions, in my view. All things we can change!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Peg
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 11:59 AM

very interesting comments, springhopper! In fact many interesting thoughts on the road rage issue from everyone....

this concept of revenge being prevalent in American society is an interesting one...other thoughts? I am thinking of the gleeful energy one sees in the faces of families who find out the (assumed) killer of their loved one is going to suffer the death openalty...no greater satisfactin than state-sanctioned murder in a public forum I guess...

which of course opens up the question of the death penalty's presence in our legal system...

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:09 PM

PEg:e

I think the short-sighted love of revenge is a common trait in almost all human cultures, certainly not peculiar to the American one.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Peg
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:12 PM

probably right Amos but I do think that something is different here; maybe because the media loves these sorts of stories too (lots of vulnerable emotions on display and extremely inarticulate people--why do they always wish to quote the stupidest people they can find?) and exploits them for al they're worth...

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:21 PM

People get violent when they're afraid. They may be afraid of a physical threat, they may be afraid of a threat to their self-image (ego, identity, dignity, etc...). They may be merely startled (as in the case of what triggers a lot of road rage). They may be impatient (fear of not having enough time).

There is a tremendous amount of sublimated fear in modern society, and it surfaces in behaviour like road rage. It also surfaces in all forms of addiction, which are partly a reaction to stress, and an attempt to assauge fear...that feeling of not being able to cope.

I think the best way to combat it is to be self-observant, go within frequently, quiet the mind, and be around other people who do that also.

In other words, "the unexamined life is not worth living", as has been said before.

The majority of lives out there are fairly much unexamined most of the time, so people are tending to be reactive rather than creative, and if you're reactive, then you are at the mercy of outside circumstances. If so, your ability to govern your own life intelligently is severely restricted.

One thing that good spiritual teachers or good psychologists teach a person is to see himself/herself in others and treat them accordingly. Out of that arises compassion, understanding, and an ability to appreciate one's own value and the value of other people too.

If our schools and other power systems taught that...instead of teaching ruthless competition (the one "winner" and many "losers" syndrome), then you would see a considerable improvement in people's attitudes as time went by.

There is far less road rage in both Cuba and Trinidad, I noticed, where road conditions are much more unpredictable and potentially hazardous than they are here. That is because people have a different attitude...they cooperate to a much greater extent with each other...rather than driving around in a distracted bubble of isolated ego, shocked out of its isolation momentarily by any little inconvenience...which is what I see most North American drivers doing.

It's more of a real community in the Caribbean than it is here, and people are not in such a damned hurry all the time. North Americans are way too isolated from each other. This may be the direct result of an affluent lifestyle, and an overly cushioned existence.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:26 PM

Peg:

Why the media quotes the stupidest people they can find, and then stands the quote up as thought it was what the world sees and a major situation, is a muystery to me. It is as if their whole mission has changed from digging up facts and reporting them, to digging up fantasies and presenting them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:48 PM

It is as if their whole mission has changed from digging up facts and reporting them, to digging up fantasies and presenting them.

No "as if" about it for much/most of the media, I'd say. It's the change from a world in which the idea is to make a living by doing something that feels like useful work (and if possible, that you like doing) to one in which the idea is to "make a killing", meaning maximising profits. An interesting idiom that - "make a killing". Idioms like that say a lot about a society.

I think most reporters, like most people, do in fact still instinctively hold to the idea that the right way to be is to make a living rather than making a killing. People still cheer for George Bailey when they watch "It's a Wonderful Life" - but it is "killers" who own the papers and control the broadcasts, and rule and shape the public image of how things should be. Their's id the mentality that is drummed into our heads, as the way people ought to think and behave. "The dynamic of progress".

And, to cast a wary eye back at the precursor thread, insofar as America is in the pole position in this Gadarene race, it gets identified as the source of the infection, when it's perhaps really just a very obvious early victim of a plague that threatens all of us.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:56 PM

From Amos:

Of course, this doesn't include biochemical factors such as drugs and alcohol, which just complicate the picture enormously.


Absolutely!

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Mark Clark
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 01:06 PM

My own take on violence is that it's a natural—not to say beneficial—component of human genetics and its origin is to be found in our DNA. There are certain characteristics necessary for the survival of species and individuals in the absence of society and culture. Two of those genetic imperratives are a propensity for violence and a strong instinctual desire for reproductive behavior. These rank right up there with hunger and thirst as characteristics an animal without sharp teeth or claws or significant size and strength must have to survive.

The odd thing about the human species isn't it's propensity for violence, it's the ability to reason in complex abstractions. This ability to reason has allowed us to create culture, civilization, and societies whose common abstractions work to moderate the instinctive behavior of our prehistoric past. What it hasn't done is bring our genetic code in line with our societal norms.

Civilization is the process of modifying our instinctive behavior based on reason to achieve results that are more satisfying for the group. Part of civilization is the voluntary relenquishment by individuals of some of our instinctive behavior for the greater good. Much of human history and philosophy has been aimed at finding ways to help us let go of that instinctive behavior found to be disruptive in a civilized society. It doesn't mean we've changed our nature, simply that we develop the ability to control our insticts through reason and practice.

I think much of the violence we see today stems from two primary causes. One is that we've largely abandoned the philosophies that tended to value the group over the individual. Today we teach by lesson and by example that the individual is the ultimate abiter of good. Many believe that the interaction of totally self-interested individuals leads to a self regulating society in which each individual retains the maximum potential. In Western societies, this has led to a generation of adults who have largely abandoned ethical limits in favor individual advancement leaving those less able to compete to fall by the wayside.

The other primary cause of personal violence is simply people's willingness to give their genetic instincts free reign over their reason. It feels good to react in a rage to every little annoyance. It helps preserve the fiction that we are in control of something or someone. Children long to be like Superman and right wrongs through sheer unopposable force. Civilized adults have learned that there are ways to right wrongs without resorting to force. But if individuals haven't been properly led into adulthood and if the social mechanisms of control are denied to them, they can easily become violent. Violence is simple and satisfying in the short term. It allows the individual the feeling that action has taken place, that something tangible has been done.

The causes of violence are, I think, fairly easy to understand. What is far more complex is finding a way to stop it. Perhaps there is no way. Perhaps our self-destructive nature is simply a natural part of Lovelock's and Margulis' Gaia Hypothesis and life on Earth is still self-regulating.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Troll
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 01:07 PM

Stupid comments by stupid people make better copy, Amos. There is no real journalism any more. It's all geared toward market share.
If they quote an intelligent person, then they have to work to make it interesting to the audience.
You'll get only a small blurb on why Greenspan thinks the prime should increase, but Madonna gets a banner headline. Yet Greenspans decisions have a very direct impact on our lives while Madonnas life and career do not affect us at all in any meaningful sense.
The media seem hell-bent on giving the public what it (the media) >I>thinks it (the public) wants and that is bread and circuses.
Larger market share, bigger profits, more dumbed-down "news".

troll

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 01:32 PM

Many believe that the interaction of totally self-interested individuals leads to a self regulating society in which each individual retains the maximum potential. In Western societies, this has led to a generation of adults who have largely abandoned ethical limits in favor individual advancement leaving those less able to compete to fall by the wayside.


The shortsightedness of this solution is attributable to its misapplication, Mark. Ethical thought -- the highest use of rationality in addressing the situation -- works best when it is self generated, from a basis of insight and individual vision. And the abandonment of ethical choice is short-sighted because, like it or not, what goes around does indeed come around. The use of external agents, like moral codes from organized churches, is just a manipulative symbolism intended to substitute for individual rationality. It works for herds, and it works on the same principle as herding.

It doesn't work well on independent people.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 01:47 PM

The origin of inappropriate destructive impulses has to be anchored to pain somewhere in the mix. Without it, why would there be fear, and why would rage be so compelling a feeling as to override reason so roundly, as it does? When people slip into violent mindsets they act as though they are in a life-or-death battle, emotionally, when they are not. Maybe the "past trauma" school of aberrant psychology has something going for it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 02:03 PM

You test what your conscience tells you against the way other people whom you have reason to trust see it.

In the end, for it to count as ethical, it has to be your conscience which is decisive, but your conscience doesn't operate in isolation during the process, even if you have to go against what everyone else tells you. Thinking it can is just arrogance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 02:07 PM

Yesterday I enjoyed watching a group of youngsters at play and came to the conclusion that part of the solution toward avoiding conflict and aggression is simply wanting to.

I had turned my little dog loose on a small slope above a small city park and set myself on a bench in the sun. It was a gorgeous, warm day and we don't get many of those, in this climate. Mothers were chatting on benches in the park far below me. Little kids, ranging in age from about 8 down to perhaps 3 bustled and milled above the mothers but below me on a path alongside a plank that topped a wall of a path below that. The plank was about 10 inches wide and the fall, if one had occurred, would have involved a drop of about 5 feet.

These little kids were actually playing in small subgroups in their own age groups rather than all together. Like birds, they didn't really acknowledge each other's presence but as they traipsed busily back and forth on the plank and the path beside it, from the trees at one end of the slope and the bushes on the other, they moved out of each other's way, smoothly and swiftly. In that hour I didn't see even one incident of 'Watch it!' or 'Get out of my way' or even 'Sorry'. There was no need for it: it was a cooperative effort.

I left bemused.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 02:12 PM

>>>Maybe the "past trauma" school of aberrant psychology has something going for it. <<<

Yes. But when you balance it against appropriate destructive impulses, it gets very confusing. For example, extending it to tribalism, and group violence, I cannot surmount. It ends up appearing that all group violence is born from rational thought. Mass hysteria? Violence of the mob? What in blazes is that??? An evolutionary remnant?

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 02:12 PM

Yeah -- but try feeding them something slimy and see what happens! :>))


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 02:24 PM

It ends up appearing that all group violence is born from rational thought. Mass hysteria? Violence of the mob? What in blazes is that??? An evolutionary remnant?

Well, if the mechanism is one of past trauma and its emotional freight taking over, the rational process is obviously in abeyance, in the individual. So if you get someone or something stirring up a whole crowd of people, each with their own mechanisms causing the suspension of rationality, then the mutual interactions simply become one of accelerating, self-reinforcing irrationality stirring itself to greater heights momoent by moment. The "natural" thing is to find external solutiojns as to what to think, when your own power to do so is turned off. If the neazrest thing is a crowd going crazy, then, under durress, that's what you'll use.

Yes, I think the mechanism is an evolutionary remnant, useful in times of tooth and claw when the lizard brain and the adrenalin would kick in to fight for survival. Not much use these days, though..


Regards,


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 03:01 PM

The same capacity we have for picking up what other people are feeling, and instinctively cooperating with them which is valuable in many circumstances can turn into mob violence in other circumstances.

And perhaps the same capacity for detaching ourselves from what other people are thinking and feeling and acting independently which can save us from getting sucked into a mob, is not a million miles removed from the ability of an individual psychopath to detach themselves from all human values.

A bit frightening, human beings. Balanced on the brink of wisdom, and only too likely to fall off on one side or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: NicoleC
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 03:14 PM

Great comments here. I couple of ideas for consideration:

In mice, fice, apes and almost any animal, overcrowding leads to more aggressive and violent behavior, even when resources are not limited. (I.e. enough food and water and sex.) Suicide rates also increase. I think we can certainly apply this to human behavior when we look at urban crime vs. rural crime.

When we look at the fact that modern human is still the same physical animal it was thousands of years ago, I don't think we can make generalizations about being more or less prone to violence based of physiology. I think that a key component might be how our innate violence is directed. Our ancestors hunted, slaughtered animals, fought against the elements and defended themselves in a way that we don't generally need to today in a world with police forces to protect us and slabs of plastic wrapped meat in the supermarket. Their natural aggressiveness/violence was useful and had a satisfying purpose.

Today, we see people trying to direct their violent tendencies without getting the satisfaction. No matter how many aliens you kill in that videogame, it means nothing on an instinctual level. Does it stir up a feedback loop where we actively seek violence (movies, sports, etc.) because we can't direct our violent natures to something beneficial? Yet our natures drive us to compete at it anyway?

I couldn't say for sure -- but people who engage in mock violence almost react like it's an addiction that drives them to more. Think "football fan."

Maybe we're adreniline junkies, and violent criminal behavior is just an aspect of it.

------------------------

On the car thing -- people and their cars always remind me of that Bugs Bunny cartoon where the hats keep landing on their heads and changing their behavior. People DO act and react different based on the kind of car they happen to be in. I don't think it's unusual that the preponderance of larger tank-like vehicles might cause the driver to react as if THEY were bigger and better than the other drivers, nor that it might make the drivers of Geo's and Aspire's react in rage out of some misguided inferiority feelings.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: NicoleC
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 03:17 PM

"fice"?!

Er, FISH.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 03:37 PM

Thanks. I was picturing a lice orgy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 04:38 PM

Maybe individual command of space is a basic part of personeal self-determination and self-inage -- such that when too many physical bodies are in too small a space, it stirs up threats of extinction just as violence might do. The "feeling crushed" sensation brings out the lash-back reaction. No-one wants to be boxed in, or tyo be an object in a sardine-can situation -- at least not if he has a spark of self-determination left -- IMHO.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 04:46 PM

I can't reconcile any of these spatial or carrying capacity theories with the widespread popularity of Deliverance.


(just kidding, btw)

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 06:48 PM

shudddddder... Amos, I would not like to be around for that. Children don't seem to have the capacity for rationalization that adults do.

I have a question about oysters- since one doesn't bite down in eating them, why don't people just drink the broth/brine in which they repose?

I rather like the flavor of oyster stew, but I can't eat the gray, drowned mouse at the bottom of the bowl!

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 07:05 PM

This is really brillliant, Ebb -- I think we've found one of the never-before-noticed keys to human abberration !

"Enforced Foodstuff as Root Cause of Human Violence"

I'll never complain about mixing threads again! Send me your CV so I can put you down as primary investigator on the white paper!! Do we have to split credit with Rick? Oh, okay, okay!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 09:39 PM

Ah, I'm sorry...

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 11:26 PM

No, no!! I meant it -- I think there's an important link there!!

Besides, I'm the one that threw in the "feed them slimy food" line. Wasn't your fault I threw a curve!! It's a side effect of my lopsided worldview....sorry!



A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: NicoleC
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 02:14 PM

There will be NO slimey food in the MudCat Cookbook, lest is stir up violent feelings!