BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 02:57 PM

LOL!!

The issue of personal space is interesting -- the Chinese and Japanese both built a cultural solution to the crowding problem, which was to lower the individuality displayed in public. It's dramatic, watching the rush-hour crowds in Hong Kong, to see how they watch the ground and sort of pull themselves in tight, to avoid intruding despite physical closeness. I've seen ocean sardines in an aquarium which have a similar crowdedness, and they also subscribe to a code of uniform conduct and show no sign of individual thought. Every no and then one bucks the crowd and swims in the wrong direction, and although he does not get attacked, he is avoided in spite of the fact that doing so reduces the space even further.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 03:40 PM

('sOK, Amos. Thanks.) The description of over-crowded countries' people handling close quarters reminds me very much of the children I was talking about earlier. The narrow paths on which they were traipsing could be seen as over-crowding.

Even in this country we do something similar, I think. In elevators and restrooms and beaches, for instance, we keep our eyes to ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 04:03 PM

Elevator manners, indeed -- eyes front, no eye contact, breathe quietly, no farting, no loud discussions, pull in thos ehorns ... I can do it in an elevator, of course, although it seems weird to me, but...a whole civilization??

But it is clear that as long as one is complying with these draconian manners, or any other set of manners, he will not engage in violence . Ritual eliminates the highly random actions.

That's why everyone was ss very shocked at the MacDonald's shooting -- the fast-food rituals everyone knew and felt safe with were being treated with sacrilege -- it was similar, in a way, to shooting up a communion session at an altar,except they were eating the flesh of Bossie and drinking the blood of the cola tree. It was a violation of ritual.

Another interesting fact about the roots of violence is the number of publicly violent individuals who were under psychiatric care. I haven't looked at the numbers lately -- the one that really caught my eye was the guy who climbed the clock tower in a Texas university and started sniping the students on the quad many years ago. My theory is that the psychiatric approach just makes them feel worse because it adds no real understanding. And, obviously, doesn't get to the roots of violence!


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Janie
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 04:29 PM

In most species violence is about sex, food or territory, all of which have to do with survival and the passing of genes. I suspect those roots are the same in our species.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 05:57 PM

Thee are four situations in which people act violently. One is when they are trying to impose their will on others. The second is when they are defending themaselves against what they feel as attack. The third is when they are obeying orders. And the fourth is because they enjoy it.

Of course these can get confused. What seems like defensive, to me, might seem very offensive and unprovoked, to the people on the receiving end. And "orders" can be used as camouflage for "fun".

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: greg stephens
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 06:09 PM

The bible, in the story of Cain and Abel, locates the start of violence in the conflict between static agriculture and people who move around for a living. I feel there's more than a germ of truth in that. Once you you settle and start piling up "things"( physical or mental)., you get pretty possessive about defending them. And the people who move around and are used to living off the land and picking up "things" where they find them inevitably cause conflict when they arrive near the settlers. Basically, behaviour evolved for hunter/gathering may not fit in too well with farms and factories.
   Right, that's my theory on the problem. now, the solution: I'll come with that in a bit.....

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Grab
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 09:01 PM

McGrath, you've missed a fifth way: when violence is the only way to get what you need. An addict needing the money for his fix may not enjoy robbing that grannny's handbag, but he'll do it bcos it's the only way he can get that money.

Greg, Cain and Abel is an interesting story bcos there are two levels, the practical and the religious.

At a practical level, let's remove all reference to God. Abel isn't getting a better quality of life bcos God's favouring him, it's bcos farming is a more reliable way of getting food than the hunter-gatherer mode. So Cain's hungry, and as a hunter-gatherer he's going to try and take food by force. This is your conflict between the two behaviour patterns.

There's also another level though. Assume that the Bible is literally correct. In that case, Abel is getting a better quality of life not because of his choice of lifestyle but bcos God is giving him all the favours, and God at the same time is crapping on Cain no matter how hard Cain tries to please him. The reason Cain kills Abel is then the same reason for the Watts riots - years of discrimination building up resentment, which eventually becomes intolerable.

Off-topic, but the story of Cain and Abel and the book of Job are two Bible stories which I find most scary, bcos they're saying explicitly that God is *not* good, is *not* fair and *will* use his powers to crap on you for no reason than he wants to, or perhaps has a little bet going with the Devil on the result. I'm not sure how committed Christians get around that. But that's off-topic, so anyway.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: NicoleC
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 09:11 PM

"Waht you need" should also include things like food. I think shooting a deer or wringing a chicken's neck is pretty violent. That doesn't mean it's not necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 09:34 PM

I would hazard a guess that how God is now is a lot more important than how he was in the first generation or so of human existence! As for scary -- well, whatever It is, it isn't gonna do much good getting scared about it!

Violence can also occur in any situation where the individual is too confused to differentiate the past from the present, if the right kind of experience is what gets called up. This is entirely subjective, not situational.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Tweed
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 09:51 PM

Hmmmm... I notice that nobody has owned up to what event or chain of events has ever caused themselves to behave violently.

When I was young we defended our "turf" during homegames and fights with visiting students were not uncommon at highschool sporting events throughout the region. (probable cause:Reruns of "Asphalt Jungle" on the television, teenage hormones)

....and I once defended my girlfriend's honor by going through the side window of a Galaxie 500 after a guy who'd made a loud comment at the local rootbeer stand. (probable cause: Hormones run amuck,the Code of Chivalry as interpreted by the teenage mind)

There, I've admitted to a couple of my own acts of stupidity and it looks like both instances are based on pre-emptive defense brought on by media images and youthful vigor. Anybody else got anything to fess up? I know that some of you claim never to have committed a violent act but there must be others who've lost their cool at some point in their lives.

Yerz,
Tweed

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 10:57 PM

Well I did get in a scrap once with a guy I worked with. We just sorta wrassled around for a few minutes, but I was pretty steamed up at him because he was accusing me of not doing my job, but doing so without grounds, merely to make himself ook good. The absolute wrongness of it just swept me away. That plus a LOT of fatigue and some of that hormone stuff you were drinking at the rootbeer stand. I've gotten pretty riled a few times -- almost uniformly when I felt my viewpoint was being torqued or twisted maliciously.

I don't think flat out violence has ever entered into it, though. Maybe I'm just too accustomed to being Clark Kent...


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Tweed
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 12:02 AM

Amos, my honest brother! If you were pissed enough to wrassle the assh*le in the workplace, then that IS outright violent behavior ain't it? Welcome to the human race;~) I'm guessing that you didn't punch the guy out. What made you stop short of doing that?

Tweed

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Sam L
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 12:47 AM

Good question, and I had that in mind when I thought about this. I'm not immune to violent impulses. There was a gym teacher I had in 7th grade who called a sad little girl in the class by a derisive nickname. I think I might hit him in the face if I ran into him tomorrow. And I think sometimes when something is wrong, and harmful, but you can't think how to explain what's wrong with the spin people put on the wrong thing to do, what the missing sense is, it makes me upset that way. I believe violence is wrong, but at some point you don't care, you don't care if you are wrong.

   I think somewhere above were some comments about the media always quoting the stupidest people. I can safely say I've never been present at an interview that came out remotely accurate in print. My wife was interviewed about directing theatre and came out sounding like an evil genius with hopes for global domination--nothing like what she said. (As it happens, she does have a plan for global domination, but she would never let that slip out, until everything's in place.) When your identity and voice are usurped and carelessly toyed around with it can piss you off deeply, it can sicken you to your soul. The only thing I can imagine soldiering for is to protect voices, and free expression. Ibsen's Doll's House made a mark on me, not so much as a "feminist" thing, but because it's really about the genderless humanity of forming a self, having a story to tell yourself, about yourself, before you die.

And work matters that way too. A part of me feels sympathy for those madmen who are dismissed after decades at a job, and go nuts. It's a part of a person, what they do a long time. People don't really pay serious attention to how anyone else does their job, the observational tools are mostly nonsense, and it goes up and down that way. It's been shown that abusive bosses who improve their behaviors are still perceived the same, regardless. People form an impression, keep it, and don't trouble themselves to let anybody grow, or fix a misunderstanding.

I'd be too ashamed to come to blows over my own interests, but when someone next to you gets rolled over by the machinery of stupidity, carelessness, fake reason and glib mis-representation, you feel an impulse to slap somebody. I suppose I feel that there are forms of covert, soft-handed, non-physical but very real violence, that provoke violent feelings. The roots of not caring are the roots of violence, high-jest havin' fun crime is part of the cause of desperate hard low crime.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 01:05 AM

Fred:

Thanks, man -- for a first class post. Truly.

There's a sort of band of activity where a person is too afraid to be angry, and too angry to flee, where the whole specturm of passive aggression and underhanded attack, backstabbing, the smiling knife-wielding pissant mewling back-channel underminer -- you know the kind -- comes in to play. Sometimes I think this brand of cat is the most dangerous animal in society --they can do all kinds of artsy arrays to appear as high-toned and uptown as sunrise, and their actual actions are just leaving broken lives behind them. These are the whisperers, the gossips with nothing good to say, the bleating fearful souls who must dissemble to survive. These are the ones who lock on to creative action and somehow turn it into dust, or who make the world appear like an uninhabitable and dangerous place by painting huge generalities designed to induce fear.

They cover themselves with pretenses of virtue, or religious trappings, or strange bureaucratic nounless balderdash designed with full intent to prevent understanding, to distract and misdirect attention.   They come in all shapes and forms, and they wear all sorts of cheery disguises. Big companies are often rich with these weevils.

Frankly, they piss me off.

Or maybe I had already made that clear.

And maybe their influence is one of the common widespread and undetected causes of violence -- folks needled to the point of madness by the secret whisperers of the world.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 01:21 AM

OK- here I go again- Thread Creep Alert! I've been puzzling over this...

Way back on 25/4 8:14, Grab said: "Europe lost its roaming gangs of bandits ages back, but America still had them until more recently."

It's probably just slipped my mind, or it's something so familiar that I didn't identify it as such; I'll probably respond Oh! Duh...

When did we in the US have "roaming gangs of bandits"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 01:41 AM

Hmmmm -- there were a number of infamous gangs at the turn of the previous century -- the James gang probably being the most famous. The Hole-in-the-Wall gang, Bill Bonney's gang, and later there were auto-endowed gangsters of the type made famous by Bonnie and Clyde and Will Sutton (he's the one whose claim to fame is explaining when asked why he robbed banks, "Because that's where the money is".

More recently still we have had roving gangs of Republicans. But that's another story.

New York City has been riddled with gangs for over a century -- Irish gangs, Puerto Rican gangs, and Madison Avenue, to name a few.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 02:13 AM

Yes, I'll concede that. But the implication I drew from Grab's statement was that the roving gangs of bandits preyed upon the people. Not on banks, and not on each other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 02:49 AM

Amos, your post of 1:05 AM is part of what we have coined here as the tyranny of the weak.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 04:28 AM

A fine phrase for it, Met'! Management by lowest common denominator comes to mind as well, when groups get infected.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 08:28 AM

It's said that doves are vicious killers once they get in certain situations, with a confined victim, because they don't have the inhibitions built in that a predator would have, since they aren't equipped with what would normally be dangerous weapons.

I think the same applies with human beings. It's quite hard killing someone with bare hands and teeth (though of course it can be done); but put a gun or a car in our hands, or even a flint knife or a rock, and it's much easier. Too easy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 08:50 AM

brilliant analyst of human nature that I am, I offer...

It seems that there are two drives that must be satisfactorily....er...satisfied in order for us humans to be relatively content.

Security
Significance

If we feel either is threatened, we are likely to act. If we cannot regain our contentment by culturally acceptable means, we are most likely to try too recapture significance and security by abnormal/insane behavior...

Addictions
Eating disorders
Violence
Suicide

This behavior is only exacerbated by larger numbers of other humans who we (perhaps mistakenly, perhaps truly) see as threats to our significance or security --

take the mudcat for example.....

When it was a smaller, less populace place (as was the whole internet bulletin board atmosphere/community), there was much less incivility. But soon it grew, and those who were once secure in their role here as forum humorist, or folk trivia maven, or obscure lyrics master, or instrumental master, were rapidly becoming much smaller fish in a much larger pond.

Most accepted their roles being supplanted (with the great influx of new "experts") with the realistic view that understood, in perspective, how relatively insignificant participation on an internet forum is. They still chose to participate where they could -- or they left to live their already significance-satisfied lives.

But at the same time, the internet started to become a haven for those who had difficulty with significance/security issues in the real world. Suddenly, it seemed, they had a place to come and meet the minimum daily requirement for human fellowship (perhaps for the first time in their lives). Finally a place to come where you could be judged on the (more egalitarian) basis of what you knew, and how well you could express it -- NOT (finally) on what you looked like. Fat, bald, ugly, flatulent people with hair in all the wrong places had equal access to this world of communication.

But the increased traffic caused these ill-equipped (and even the not so ill-equiped) to have to deal with the significance/security issues in their lives -- and these people had already failed in the 3-D world. Hence, they had just closed another of the increasingly few avenues open to them for contentment.

Thus, the internet equivalent of violence is born -- Trolling and Flaming.

And thus, it is almost impossible to post a topic on this forum and not be showered with negative, contrarian responses. In order to feel more significant, one's posts must stand out from the rest. One can achieve this by:

1. Writing in a style superlative (like PeterT, Amos, JenEllen)
2. Truly being expert (like Frankham, Fielding, Mooh, Deckman,)
3. Having a reputation that exceeds the forum -- but is tied to its reason for existance (like Frankham, kytrad, Art Thieme,)
4. Being truly witty (like Catspaw)
5 Being positive, warm, caring posters (like mudlark, Mary from KY, Mark Clark)

The above are all positive ways to "be noticed" on a crowded forum street -- but they are either much harder, or require talent not achieved by most. So most people here choose to stand out the easy way -- go negative. -- works (almost) every time.

And this, just like violence, has only two solutions relative to the community:

1. ignore it. Jesus' "turn the other cheek", or the Eastern "remove the wall against which your enemy is leaning" (not in that childish "I'm just not gonna answer that!" kinda way that is actually returned violence) are ways that this means is expressed. If one cannot achieve the significance he is after by using violence -- he still gets no response -- he is much more likely to abandon the approach. Of course, with violence, the slap on the turned cheek is often soon escalated to socially unsafe behavior and that leads to the other means of dealing with the problem --

2. removal from society.

And this gets to my final point about the roots of violence -- it almost always excalates where there is a lack of justice. What an individual should not do -- strike back -- is required of the government.

When the individual does it, it is vengence.

When the government does it there is the due process necessary to change the "retaliation" to violence from vengence to justice. If the government acts as the individual (and thus abrogates this social role) the "retaliation" will default back to vengence....

......and more violence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 09:11 AM

The real question, why is is that most of us don't get violent, or even feel particularly violent, in situations where some seemingly normal people flip, and is there anything in pareticular societies which nudge peopel over the line in one way or another?

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Tweed
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 10:14 AM

And maybe their influence is one of the common widespread and undetected causes of violence -- folks needled to the point of madness by the secret whisperers of the world. !!! Amos, if you work for the Post Office I advise you to take all yore firearms and throw them into the bay before another day dawns!! ;~) Just kidding buddy, but I agree with you that they probably are responsible for violence in the workplace and in the schools as well. What do you suppose triggers spontaneous fighting between strangers? I think that we still are able to pick up on all the old posturing and eyeballing that our primate ancestors were privy to. Why one person can think beyond that challenge and another reacts in a violent manner is beyond me.

Looking back 30 years to the few fights I was in, just prior to the "battles", there was an overwhelming feeling of fear and dread, but after the first blow, that same emotion became like a lubricant/drug that shut down inhibitions and allowed the combatants to wade into the fray with no second thoughts about anything. Very intoxicating and powerful stuff and might explain why rival city gangs enjoy a good old rumble now and then. Mebbe there's a subconscious impulse to recapture the rush.

Yerz,
Tweed
P.S. The war planning politicians, who are educated and fairly well off and possibly have little personal experience with hand to hand combat in any form, seem to revel in arranging massive violence between peoples. Which group is less civilized then? The street gangs or the educated puppetmasters? Who would be the best representative of civilized thought processes becoming bent and disturbed?

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 11:53 AM

Tweed, that's a point -- there is an addictive combination of adrenalin and testosterone for some folks, and anyone who has survived violence knows the feeling of focus and "now" attention that comes with it.

And I guess the perversion of that -- where the feeling comes not just from survival challenge, but from destruction -- is the watershed of insanity.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: NicoleC
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 02:20 PM

The only time I can think of that I acted violently (as opposed to reacting in self-defense) was when I was about 10 years old. As the only girl in the neighborhood (it was semi-rural -- neighborhood meant about a 1 mile radious), I was often hard pressed to be included; when I was, it was always as my 'brother's little sister' and I was at the very bottom of the pecking order.

So one day, we were playing baseball. I was, of course, relegated to the outfield, where "playing" meant standing there all day long. Also in the outfield was Clifford, who was the bottom boy in the pecking order. He was 2 or 3 years older and a bit bigger. He was being obnoxous and yelling taunts at they other players, and I told him to shut up.

He said, "Come over here and make me!"

I'm not 100% clear on what happened next, but my brother told me I threw down my glove, calmly walked over and punched him in the mouth and gave him a bloody lip. When I opened my eyes, my brother had the most astounded look on his face, the boys were all trying to see what happened, Clifford was crying and covering his mouth, and then he ran for home. I never saw him again.

There are all sorts of interesting ideas that could have led up to that act of aggression. Was I venting my race on the weakest possible target? Was I trying to establish a better place in the pecking order? Or did I just lose control?

Well, I always played shortstop after that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Mark Clark
Date: 27 Apr 03 - 02:41 PM

That was the second point in my post above; that giving in to our violent instincts feels good. We may soon regret a violent act but at the moment it happens, it feels great.

My own violent outbursts were, predictably, before I had become properly socialized. Life for a teenager in the mid to late 1950s contained quite a lot of violence. Most young males were on a hair trigger just because it was the accepted norm among our peers. As in Tweed's experience, there were gang fights following sporting events between rival schools. But there could also be gang fights between loosely organized groups of kids based on turf. Violence or the possibility of violence was also needed to seem sexually attractive to the girls. That isn't to say one needed to be a bully, but you definately couldn't be a victim. You needed to seem a little dangerous and you needed dangerous friends.

I remember punching a guy out one time at a hootenanny at the home of some adult friends. I was doing my best to embrace non-violene and pacifism as a philosophy and lifestyle when another guy decided to mock both me and my very hot new girlfriend by grabbing her in an inappropriate way as he passed her chair. Everyone was shocked and we tried just leaving quitely to avoid a scene. But in a bedroom, while packing instruments and donning coats, the guy came in with a big smirk on his face and I just let him have it. It fealt great! Still makes me smile to think about it. We were immediatly ushered outside where he seemed combative so I let him have it again. My girlfriend would have admired the pacifist response but she really admired having her honor defended.

But I think that just reinforces my premise that violent behavior is instinctive and is built into our genetic heritage. By the way, I think women are still attracted by the possibility of violence in a male partner. That may be genetic coding as well.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 12:07 AM

Hmmmm...well, most of the violence I've ever personally seen was committed by boys in school against other boys. There was a lot of that in the 50's and 60's.

As for the world in general, by far the greatest amount of violence (and the deadliest) is practiced by governments on the general public...but it is not usually given recognition as such, except by opposing governments...or protestors and nonconformists (who are frequently the targets of it).

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 02:42 AM

Are we trained into the sense that what Mark describes is the ultimate chivalric response, and the Genuine Cowboy Way? This one puzzles the hell out of me -- there are some cultures where lifting a finger in defense of a woman is considered incomprehensible; in ours, violence in defense of such interesting abstractions as a lady's honor are quite defensible -- and as Mark demonstrates, they are much more "satisfactory" than an eductaed, non-violent answer, but....why?

It is almost as if we are on the look out for key events which "call for" the use of physical force ande can justify it adequately in our minds, and once we find such a corcumstance, we pick up the old bat and look around for a target. But what is ibnteresting is the predisposition to keep a sharp eye out for the right circumstances so we can turn on all the appropriate mechanisms the minute whatever circumstances we need are detected. CUltural radar tuned for the signature of good justifications.

What's that all about?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 05:46 AM

I don't think there is actually much connection between the kind of individual fights mentioned there and organised high level violence, such as wars.

When people get angry that interferes with efficiency. Cool detachment from what what you are doing is surely necessary for an efficient sniper, someone dropping or planting a bomnb, or for a commanding officer ordering an attack, in which there are going to be heavy losses. I doubt if you get much of the kind of adrenalin rush you get in a fight from that kind of thing.

It's possible to be a fist-fighting pacifist, and what Mark described there is an example. To quote myself from a previous post: "War is about killing people you don't know with whom you have no personal quarrel, on then orders of people whom you may well not respect.

A pacifist is someone who refuses to take part in waging war. You don't actually need to be non-violent in all circumstances to be a pacifist.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 08:38 AM

Amos-You are quite likely right about looking for circumstances where violence is justified. I think part of the reason for considering such violence acceptable is that it appears altruistic; you are risking your health to defend another, presumably one who cannot or should not have to defend themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 06:48 PM

Well, so looking like you're willing to defy harm for the sake of your fellow-man is the secret good impulse behind some acts of violence? Hmmmm -- I once speculated in an essay that at the bottom of every insane act was a sane impulse badly blown out of proportion. Mebbe there's a constructive intention behind destructive violence, just hidden by a lot of confusion and misdirected thinking...


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 07:23 PM

"The urge to destroy is also a creative urge" Count Bakunin, the Russian anarchist wrote.

Which is true enough in certain circumstances, as any builder or worker in wood knows.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Sam L
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 07:25 PM

Sounds like a good essay. The way I read Lear, it's entirely about proportion, and sanity. Starting with the division of the kingdom, the heaps or measured love. If I sound pleased with my insight, it's just because I'm dense, and hope for the occasional schoolboy encouragement.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 07:30 PM

Fred:

OK, can do -- you deserve encouragement!! You have really nice insights. I like your posts a lot!!

(Actually, all very true).


Howzzat?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Sam L
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 09:48 AM

Pretty good! When's recess?

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 06:52 PM

Intra-species violence is always at a maximum at mating time. A high level of testosterone is linked to a high level of aggressivity. Young males of the human species are known to be most prone to violence (in comparison to other humans) and to have a high level of testosterone.

It has been claimed here that the level of violence is increasing. This is certainly untrue for interpersonal violence excluding war. This type of violence has been decreasing since centuries. Any look into old chronicles shows that. I guess that even with war the probability of getting killed by another human has decreased for many centuries. What has increased, however, is the greater accessability (TV, internet, newspaper) to stories about violence. Humans tend to make spontaneous guesstimates of frequencies according to the ease with which instances come to the mind. That is not a very reliable guess and is strongly biased.

The increase of road accidents seems impressive only if you forget that at the same time the level of work related fatal accidents has decreased by a far greater number. We earn our bread at a much safer way nowadays.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 07:22 PM

"...excluding war." That is quite an exclusion. Though I'm in agreement that much of the killing in war probably hasn't got that much to do with other types of violence.

Work related accidents - I'm guessing, but my guess is that the number here would have risen dramatically for a few generations following the Industrial Revolution from a relatively low figure.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 07:34 PM

Maslow would probably identify the roots of violence relative to his pyramid of needs -- starving or physically threatened people feel desperate and that desperation leads to extreme acts. But -- interestingly enough -- the same sort of desperation can come from feeling similarly thwarted or threatened on other needs, such as safety of an emotional sort, or perhaps even self-fulfillment. I can't say I know of any acts of physical violence caused by thwarted self-fulfillment, to be honest, but it is an amusing concept. Well, maybe there's a hierarchy of kinds of violence, too -- physical, emotional, and cognitive? 'Cuz I'm sure I have seen extreme cognitive violence being perpetrated by people whose chances for self-fulfillment are slim to none.

Just speculatin', you understand...


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 08:06 PM

acts of physical violence caused by thwarted self-fulfillment

What about events like the Columbine shootings, and other instances where there is a clearly a connection between the perpetrator's mental state and their violent actions? I would think that would be an example of twarted sel-fulfillment, even if the desires involved aren't necessarily rational ones.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 10:27 PM

"thwarted self-fulfillment" is probably a significant factor in a fair number of suicides too.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 11:35 PM

Well, there's emotional layers and then there's self-fulfillment of the higher sort which comes after you clear away a lot of old freight. I think emotional freight is intimately tied in with physical duress and in turn ties itself in intimately with cognitive difficulty. As do cogntiive and spiritual difficulty -- like one of those layered parfait-liqueurs, each of these zones interacts with the one above and the one below in strange and wondrous ways. A lot of emotional turmoil sounds like frustration of self-fulfillment, because it is certainly an impediment and frustrating to the self, but in the Maslowian sense, I think there's a differentiation to be made.

Jus t my two bits worth, FWIW.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 02:03 AM

Lack of Consequence can be a factor. Bullies in school are not punished severely for their bad behaviour. They thrive in a culture where the consequence of their action is a mild reprimand and detention. Sometimes they are made to write a note of apology to the victim; very often dictated and not sincere. Parents very often do not believe their kid is guilty, so there is rarely a follow up after school, or re-enforce the teachers authority.

Some people have trouble accepting that there are evil people who enhance their reputations in the gang by killing for no apparent reason. In some gang culture you must be blooded (kill) before you are accepted. Not too long ago a gang called Einsatzgruppen became very efficient killers. September 1941 33,000 men, women, and children were shot and buried in a ravine at Babi Yar in just two days.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: NicoleC
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 12:55 PM

enhance their reputations in the gang by killing for no apparent reason

Enhancing one's reputation is a reason within itself. It may not be logical, but it is emotional. Needing acceptance into a larger group is part of human nature.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 06:03 PM

It is possible that the root of all human violence is a series of misconception about time. For example, in order to dramatize some past trauma you have to fail to differentiate it from the present, so that its "feelings" are being played over you in the present moment even though it occurred some time back. For another example, believing that you can achieve large rewards in status or wealth by actions measured in hours is a sort of collapsed sense of the flow of things through time. Even suicide depends on the notion that one's time and the continuation of personal confusion will end with a single violent act. This is often not the case.

It is clear that time itself is difficult to fully understand. Most of us skip the issue by hanging on to the present as well as we can. But the odd thing is perhaps that a lot mnor eof our creative energies are wrapped up in the past and in the future than in the moment.

By which hangs many a tale, I am sure...


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 10:28 PM

Hey Amos,

I just read your last post and will have posted a response...

...yesterday. If I had the time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: toadfrog
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 11:19 PM

Looking for the "roots of violence" in human nature sounds like an excessively speculative project. But for some extremely interesting insights, try Richard Rhodes Why They Kill, on a maverick psychologist who based his work on extensive interviews with violent criminals. Also points out a lot of things that are wrong with contemporary academic psychology. He also thoroughly debunks the idea that violent behaviour is "irrational."

Also, for some interesting thoughts, the first chapter in Keegan's History of Warfare which points out that although violence and some kind of warlike behaviour may be part of essential human nature, the kind of disciplined violence we see in modern warfare is decidedly not.

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 03 - 12:30 AM

TF:

Rhodes sounds like an interesting read,. thanks for the reference.

Violent behavior is netiher irrational nor rational in itself.

But if your man Rhodes tries to make a case that irrationality is an empty concept, or that brutality against the innocent is not irrational, I'm not going there. I believe there is a difference between rationality and irrationality, and that violence in places and against persons where it is not called for is throughly irrational. But I think you could make a case that there is a lot of confusion between rationality and cultural acceptability, and the two are not the same, although they are linked.

As for the topic being speculative -- it's about as concrete and meaningful as trying to define whether violence is 'the American Way'. But perhaps more helpful. Working toward answers that seem "more true" adds incrementally to some sense of understanding at least. Who knows where the benefits of that might appear?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Mark Clark
Date: 01 May 03 - 12:50 AM

Toadfrog makes an interesting point. I'll have to check out those authors. I've read that, prior to Viet Nam, infantrymen often didn't shoot to kill or perhaps didn't even shoot at all. The DoD spent a lot of time and money studying the problem and had entirely new training methods developed by the time troops were needed for Viet Nam. From that war forward, nearly all infantrymen fire their weapons in a fight and shoot to kill.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 03 - 08:22 PM

MArk:

I seriously doubt that was the case in WW II.   Or there were an unbelievable number of accidental collisions with lead.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Roots of Violence in Humans
From: Mark Clark
Date: 01 May 03 - 09:49 PM

Actually that was the case in WW II. I'll try to locate the documentation.

      - Mark