Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 129
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: Is violence natural behaviour for a Human Being?

  1. #1 Is violence natural behaviour for a Human Being? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I personally don't think violating others is natural behaviour.

    If it is our true nature to violate each other then why is there a law against it? isn't that hypocracy?

    What is the origin or cause of violence?

    Could we survive without it?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Yes, it is natural. If you would ask this question about any other animal, the answer would be obvious. Violence serves the purpose of survival under specific circumstances, and is not appropriate under other circumstances. Laws tend to channel this behavior in a way that supports the survival of the society.

    Could we survive without it? Maybe for a while until some other person or group takes advantage of us.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    What do you mean by violating others? How, if at all are you distinguishing between violating others and violence?

    Violence is wholly natural. Try bringing down an antelope or a mammoth without it. Throwing flowers at hostile neighbours might work in a 60's retrospective, it was out of place in the Roman Empire and most other settings.

    We have laws against it because, like all characteristic behviours of humans they should be appropriate and timely. That's why you are free to make love to your wife, with her agreement, at home, but not on the top deck of the number 42 to Camberwell Green.

    Violence is a useful survival mechanism - that is its origin. It's an evolutionary adaptation.

    Survival without it would require a quite different beast that would likely not be homo sapiens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Physical violence is a form of aggression, but a violent act may or may not be a result of aggression since one can commit what we would consider as a violent act against another person but at the same time not possess any form of malice intent. Self-defense and not knowing when to stop comes to mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Yes, it is natural. If you would ask this question about any other animal, the answer would be obvious. Violence serves the purpose of survival under specific circumstances, and is not appropriate under other circumstances. Laws tend to channel this behavior in a way that supports the survival of the society.

    Could we survive without it? Maybe for a while until some other person or group takes advantage of us.
    The thing is, we are not like any other animals are we... we are clearly very distinct. More advanced intellectually. Is acting like the other animals our true nature?

    The only way some other person or group could take advantage is by violating us... In the context of NO violence, this could not possibly happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    What do you mean by violating others? How, if at all are you distinguishing between violating others and violence?

    Violence is wholly natural. Try bringing down an antelope or a mammoth without it. Throwing flowers at hostile neighbours might work in a 60's retrospective, it was out of place in the Roman Empire and most other settings.

    We have laws against it because, like all characteristic behviours of humans they should be appropriate and timely. That's why you are free to make love to your wife, with her agreement, at home, but not on the top deck of the number 42 to Camberwell Green.

    Violence is a useful survival mechanism - that is its origin. It's an evolutionary adaptation.

    Survival without it would require a quite different beast that would likely not be homo sapiens.
    For me the word violation is inextricably entwined with the notion of 'rights'. So when I say violation I mean violation of somethings basic right, or a humans basic right (lets stick to human on human violation).
    We have a basic right to live from the earth, to prosper as well as our skills allow. If we have the right to do anything, i.e free will, then why do we have laws? are laws not a violation of our rights to live freely? The only reason violence is ever needed as a survival mechanism is to fight physical violence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Physical violence is a form of aggression, but a violent act may or may not be a result of aggression since one can commit what we would consider as a violent act against another person but at the same time not possess any form of malice intent. Self-defense and not knowing when to stop comes to mind.
    Then maybe self defense is not violence, or it is violence against violence.

    Not knowing when to stop? what scenario do you have in mind exactly?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Then maybe self defense is not violence, or it is violence against violence.

    Not knowing when to stop? what scenario do you have in mind exactly?
    In a physical confrontation, there is only so much that can be achieved when taking a passive stance in defending oneself, and the usual or preferred approach is usually to overcome your opponent with what some may consider as violence in and of itself.

    Suppose I grapple an opponent onto the ground, what then? Do I stay in that position till someone else intervenes on my behalf, till my opponent yields (assuming he/she sincerely meant it and not as a ruse to start it all over again)? What if I were facing a situation where there are "more of them" than I can handle? Can I possibly overcome each of them one at a time, or all at one time; all the time? The likelihood that I may need to resort to more desperate measures is there depending on the situation. That is; if I know when to stop before I go "overboard", supposing I am able to stop one or all of them.

    Physical violence as a form of aggression in self-defense is where I am coming from. I think both Harold14370 & John Galt covered the evolutionary aspects of violence and it's usefulness as a necessary means in taking down prey in survival and as a component in society. I think you may need to narrow down how you wish to approach the subject matter, since violence and it's cause has many facets. Do you wish to do so by analyzing how aggression can lead to violence, anger management issues, frustration, etc. Or just violence in general.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Then maybe self defense is not violence, or it is violence against violence.

    Not knowing when to stop? what scenario do you have in mind exactly?
    In a physical confrontation, there is only so much that can be achieved when taking a passive stance in defending oneself, and the usual or preferred approach is usually to overcome your opponent with what some may consider as violence in and of itself.

    Suppose I grapple an opponent onto the ground, what then? Do I stay in that position till someone else intervenes on my behalf, till my opponent yields (assuming he/she sincerely meant it and not as a ruse to start it all over again)? What if I were facing a situation where there are "more of them" than I can handle? Can I possibly overcome each of them one at a time, or all at one time; all the time? The likelihood that I may need to resort to more desperate measures is there depending on the situation. That is; if I know when to stop before I go "overboard", supposing I am able to stop one or all of them.

    Physical violence as a form of aggression in self-defense is where I am coming from. I think both Harold14370 & John Galt covered the evolutionary aspects of violence and it's usefulness as a necessary means in taking down prey in survival and as a component in society. I think you may need to narrow down how you wish to approach the subject matter, since violence and it's cause has many facets. Do you wish to do so by analyzing how aggression can lead to violence, anger management issues, frustration, etc. Or just violence in general.
    I had physical violence in mind as this is perhaps the most extreme violence, even physical violence can be a broad spectrum, beyond assult etc.

    Violation of rights scooby... all violations that are clearly violations.

    Personally I think it is justifiable to use violence in defense... if this is the only time people used violence then violence wouldn't exist.

    John galt and harold may have contributed with good input relating to violence as an evolutionary context... but I hardly think there small paragraphs have covered all aspects.

    I would rather talk about man violating man.

    Ofcourse we have used violence against animals, and plants, and this has had positive results for our own evolution, yet it might well be the cause for the end of our evolution if we are not careful. For example if we pollute environments or over hunt... then how will we survive? we won't. But as I said I'd rather discuss human o human violations of all kinds.

    Is violence pathological? Is violence always borne out of insecurity? that kind of thing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I had physical violence in mind as this is perhaps the most extreme violence, even physical violence can be a broad spectrum, beyond assult etc.

    Violation of rights scooby... all violations that are clearly violations.

    Personally I think it is justifiable to use violence in defense... if this is the only time people used violence then violence wouldn't exist.

    John galt and harold may have contributed with good input relating to violence as an evolutionary context... but I hardly think there small paragraphs have covered all aspects.

    I would rather talk about man violating man.

    Ofcourse we have used violence against animals, and plants, and this has had positive results for our own evolution, yet it might well be the cause for the end of our evolution if we are not careful. For example if we pollute environments or over hunt... then how will we survive? we won't. But as I said I'd rather discuss human o human violations of all kinds.

    Is violence pathological? Is violence always borne out of insecurity? that kind of thing
    Violence to violating one's Rights? I'm afraid you lost me there.

    The question of whether the use of violence against violence is justified or not doesn't really interest me all that much, since it some cases it is highly subjective depending on the situation and the value system one uses to assess the outcome. I am however interested in the motivation and cause for and leading to violence acts, in particular this context I am referring to violence that can lead to severe injury, physical disability, and even death as an outcome of a confrontation; be it for survival in the wilderness or in self-defense. This in my perspective is more in-line with what I think the behavior and psychology forum suited for; but that's just me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Is violence pathological? Is violence always borne out of insecurity? that kind of thing
    You are, from my perspective, starting with the wrong premise. You seem to believe violence is a bad thing. That it is, perhaps, immoral, wrong, unwelcome, primitive, dangerous, counterproductive, etc. My point - and i think Harold may have implied much the same - is that violence is a very effective tool in the human armory of behaviours. Without violence, including violence against fellow humans, we would not have been as successful as we are.

    We are violent. We are killers. We do eat meat. We do exploit the environment. We are also devoted parents - what other species puts up with its offspring for fifteen years? We are brilliant at cooperation - how many tens of thousands of people worked together to put men on the moon? Indeed, calculate how many thousands of people were ultimately necessary to put your breakfast on the table. We are vaersatile. We are adaptive. We are creative. And sometimes we are violent.

    It's who we are. Don't knock it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I had physical violence in mind as this is perhaps the most extreme violence, even physical violence can be a broad spectrum, beyond assult etc.

    Violation of rights scooby... all violations that are clearly violations.

    Personally I think it is justifiable to use violence in defense... if this is the only time people used violence then violence wouldn't exist.

    John galt and harold may have contributed with good input relating to violence as an evolutionary context... but I hardly think there small paragraphs have covered all aspects.

    I would rather talk about man violating man.

    Ofcourse we have used violence against animals, and plants, and this has had positive results for our own evolution, yet it might well be the cause for the end of our evolution if we are not careful. For example if we pollute environments or over hunt... then how will we survive? we won't. But as I said I'd rather discuss human o human violations of all kinds.

    Is violence pathological? Is violence always borne out of insecurity? that kind of thing
    Violence to violating one's Rights? I'm afraid you lost me there.

    The question of whether the use of violence against violence is justified or not doesn't really interest me all that much, since it some cases it is highly subjective depending on the situation and the value system one uses to assess the outcome. I am however interested in the motivation and cause for and leading to violence acts, in particular this context I am referring to violence that can lead to severe injury, physical disability, and even death as an outcome of a confrontation; be it for survival in the wilderness or in self-defense. This in my perspective is more in-line with what I think the behavior and psychology forum suited for; but that's just me.
    When you violate somebody, this is know as violence. Mahatma Ghandi said 'poverty is the worst form of violence'... hopefully that helps you see the word violence in a broader perspective.

    Your interested in motivation and cause for violence... same here. What would you say are the fundamental motivations for violent confrontations? This is what was meant by "What is the origin or cause of violence?" found at the start of the thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    The thing is, we are not like any other animals are we... we are clearly very distinct. More advanced intellectually. Is acting like the other animals our true nature?

    The only way some other person or group could take advantage is by violating us... In the context of NO violence, this could not possibly happen.
    We are a bit more clever than other animals, but the same laws of survival apply. In the context of no violence, it would not happen. In the context of reality, it does. Societies attempt to create a context of no violence. Those assigned the task are often seen with guns strapped to their hips.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    When you violate somebody, this is know as violence. Mahatma Ghandi said 'poverty is the worst form of violence'... hopefully that helps you see the word violence in a broader perspective.
    I'm not sure how to digest that, or that I agree with it and what your quoted from Ghandi. Poverty that arises from the economical state of a particular country, as a result from the lack of a desired education yielding a better paying job, as a result of a physical and/or mental disability, or perhaps possibly the worst reasons (in my books) laziness?

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What would you say are the fundamental motivations for violent confrontations? This is what was meant by "What is the origin or cause of violence?" found at the start of the thread.
    There can be many reasons for and leading to violent acts, again; depending on the situation. Violence can be classified for the purpose of this thread as either/both passive or active types. Provoking a fight and eventually getting into one is an active form of violence. In self-defense or in the defense of another is a passive form of violence. Although, if one were to loose his/her "cool/head" even in what started out as a passive form, can result in one going overboard to the extent of it being an active form of violence. Remember the scenario I given about grappling an opponent to the ground and/or when facing more than one aggressor?

    I suppose one of the motivations for violence can be frustration; in not getting one's way in a situation and not being able to channel this frustration in a non-physical way. Would you consider smashing a vase or breaking a barbie doll as a means of venting one's frustration being violent?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Is violence pathological? Is violence always borne out of insecurity? that kind of thing
    You are, from my perspective, starting with the wrong premise. You seem to believe violence is a bad thing. That it is, perhaps, immoral, wrong, unwelcome, primitive, dangerous, counterproductive, etc. My point - and i think Harold may have implied much the same - is that violence is a very effective tool in the human armory of behaviours. Without violence, including violence against fellow humans, we would not have been as successful as we are.

    We are violent. We are killers. We do eat meat. We do exploit the environment. We are also devoted parents - what other species puts up with its offspring for fifteen years? We are brilliant at cooperation - how many tens of thousands of people worked together to put men on the moon? Indeed, calculate how many thousands of people were ultimately necessary to put your breakfast on the table. We are vaersatile. We are adaptive. We are creative. And sometimes we are violent.

    It's who we are. Don't knock it.
    To say I seem to beleive it is bad etc is a presumption, But, In all honesty I do THINK it to be bad based on my logic, it's not a belief and i'm always prepared to change what i think based on new info.

    I want to make a distinction here between violence as a means to defend oneself, or to survive, and violence which is not necesary for survival but is used to further ones lot, like greed based violence, do we need to be the most powerful to ensure survival of our strand? being rich and wealthy might actually be a hinderance to our physical evolution and ability to survive, especially if it makes us softer.

    I do think all violence is underlined and caused by insecurity, fear. There is justifyable violence but then there is uncalled for violence.

    I agree it is a tool in our armoury, I agree it is a tool we have developed at some point due to a 'need' or a percieved benefit towards survival. I just worry that in some people that instinctive ability to cause harm is nurtured to the point where they will do violence without any real reason. Scooby made a good point about agression, I think it is agression that your talking about which is a tool from our evolution, at what point did that necesary agression used for self defence and survival become violence and violation of the earth and each other?

    I agree it is necesary to be agressive in self defence and wouldn't be wise to get that out of our character, though maybe this is being done. So that isn't really violence is it, violence is greed, insecurity, fear based attack on others. At what point in our evolution did that occur?

    So agression is natural. But is violence natural? as defined above, though maybe not correctly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    When you violate somebody, this is know as violence. Mahatma Ghandi said 'poverty is the worst form of violence'... hopefully that helps you see the word violence in a broader perspective.
    I'm not sure how to digest that, or that I agree with it and what your quoted from Ghandi. Poverty that arises from the economical state of a particular country, as a result from the lack of a desired education yielding a better paying job, as a result of a physical and/or mental disability, or perhaps possibly the worst reasons (in my books) laziness?[/QOUTE]

    As a result of oppression, violence caused by greed, desire etc. I think Ghandi might have seen it as the human family has a lot of wealth and resources accumalated over generations, yet some family members in some places live in complete poverty which they have no chance of getting out of. This makes me think of a brother and sister conspiring to keep the family inheritance for themselves and not share it with the other 5 siblings.


    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What would you say are the fundamental motivations for violent confrontations? This is what was meant by "What is the origin or cause of violence?" found at the start of the thread.
    [QOUTE]There can be many reasons for and leading to violent acts, again; depending on the situation. Violence can be classified for the purpose of this thread as either/both passive or active types. Provoking a fight and eventually getting into one is an active form of violence. In self-defense or in the defense of another is a passive form of violence. Although, if one were to loose his/her "cool/head" even in what started out as a passive form, can result in one going overboard to the extent of it being an active form of violence. Remember the scenario I given about grappling an opponent to the ground and/or when facing more than one aggressor?

    I suppose one of the motivations for violence can be frustration; in not getting one's way in a situation and not being able to channel this frustration in a non-physical way. Would you consider smashing a vase or breaking a barbie doll as a means of venting one's frustration being violent?
    Passive and active is good, but it's blurry as the best way to be passively agressive is to be actively agressive. I know thats confusing the matter, I mean all violence/agression is active, it's not passive.
    Whose to say what is a justifiable level of violence or agression in self defense?

    Smashing a vase would be agression but not violence. Agression does manifest due to frustration but I would say that frustration would stem from a fear. A fear that you won't get what you want, a fear that you won't be as happy and fullfilled as you hoped.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    As a result of oppression, violence caused by greed, desire etc. I think Ghandi might have seen it as the human family has a lot of wealth and resources accumalated over generations, yet some family members in some places live in complete poverty which they have no chance of getting out of. This makes me think of a brother and sister conspiring to keep the family inheritance for themselves and not share it with the other 5 siblings.
    That to me, isn't violence in the usual sense of the word. Are you perhaps using the word violence in place of another?

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Passive and active is good, but it's blurry as the best way to be passively agressive is to be actively agressive. I know thats confusing the matter, I mean all violence/agression is active, it's not passive.
    I honestly can't make heads or tails of what you have said there.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Smashing a vase would be agression but not violence.
    Odd, isn't it the opposite? Violence by what I do understand is an act, and aggression however is a behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Agression does manifest due to frustration but I would say that frustration would stem from a fear. A fear that you won't get what you want, a fear that you won't be as happy and fullfilled as you hoped.
    I hope I do not come across as being rude here, but you may want to consult with a dictionary on what the words; violence, aggression, and frustration means before we go any further.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Smashing a vase would be agression but not violence. Agression does manifest due to frustration but I would say that frustration would stem from a fear. A fear that you won't get what you want, a fear that you won't be as happy and fullfilled as you hoped.
    Anyone halfway familiar with a household where a few people live in fear of domestic violence by one or more might disagree with you there.

    Smashing furniture and other exhibitions of violence are used by some people explicitly to threaten others with what might happen to them or their pets or their possessions or family members. The only fulfilment sought by such people is the confirmation that those they threaten in this way are genuinely frightened of them.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Smashing a vase would be agression but not violence. Agression does manifest due to frustration but I would say that frustration would stem from a fear. A fear that you won't get what you want, a fear that you won't be as happy and fullfilled as you hoped.
    Anyone halfway familiar with a household where a few people live in fear of domestic violence by one or more might disagree with you there.

    Smashing furniture and other exhibitions of violence are used by some people explicitly to threaten others with what might happen to them or their pets or their possessions or family members. The only fulfilment sought by such people is the confirmation that those they threaten in this way are genuinely frightened of them.
    You're quite right ofcourse adelady. I wasn't envisioning the added dynamic of having people present who felt threatened by the act of vase smashing. I imagined it alone, in your own place, nobody feels threatened. which in that case would be agression but not violence right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    As a result of oppression, violence caused by greed, desire etc. I think Ghandi might have seen it as the human family has a lot of wealth and resources accumalated over generations, yet some family members in some places live in complete poverty which they have no chance of getting out of. This makes me think of a brother and sister conspiring to keep the family inheritance for themselves and not share it with the other 5 siblings.
    That to me, isn't violence in the usual sense of the word. Are you perhaps using the word violence in place of another?

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Passive and active is good, but it's blurry as the best way to be passively agressive is to be actively agressive. I know thats confusing the matter, I mean all violence/agression is active, it's not passive.
    I honestly can't make heads or tails of what you have said there.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Smashing a vase would be agression but not violence.
    Odd, isn't it the opposite? Violence by what I do understand is an act, and aggression however is a behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Agression does manifest due to frustration but I would say that frustration would stem from a fear. A fear that you won't get what you want, a fear that you won't be as happy and fullfilled as you hoped.
    I hope I do not come across as being rude here, but you may want to consult with a dictionary on what the words; violence, aggression, and frustration means before we go any further.
    You do come across as rude. What have I said to make you think I don't understand the definitions of these words?

    I think the problem is you're not understanding my way of saying things.

    You might want to check the similarity between behavour and act (action). All behaviour is act.

    The word passive does not apply to violence. Violence is and action as you say. Agression can be passive, but any act of agression is not passive.

    Are we all cleared up now? feel free to move further on with the discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    which in that case would be agression but not violence right?
    In the kind of household I was talking about? Absolutely not.

    If I came home to find that, I'd be terrified .... what's he going to do next.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    which in that case would be agression but not violence right?
    In the kind of household I was talking about? Absolutely not.

    If I came home to find that, I'd be terrified .... what's he going to do next.
    What if he cleaned it up so not to worry you? Ignore that I don't want to go down this diversion.

    No ade, not the household you was talking about... a household with only one person who smashes the vase, cleans up the vase, nobody else witnesses it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    You do come across as rude.
    That is unfortunate, for I was hoping that it wouldn't and I did not mean for it to be so.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What have I said to make you think I don't understand the definitions of these words?

    I think the problem is you're not understanding my way of saying things.
    Well, you did somewhat associate the words violence with violating one's Rights earlier on. Perhaps in some cases, that may be so to a certain extent, but not all violation of an individual's Rights are violent or considered violence. Plus, what I've said about your usage of the word violence with regards to your expansion on Ghandi isn't exactly an accurate use of the word.

    But I think you are right in saying that I do not fully understand some of what you have said or had intend to say. Although I am making an effort to make as much sense from it as I am able to.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    You might want to check the similarity between behavour and act (action). All behaviour is act.
    They are similar but aren't exactly the same. I am not entirely sure which portion of my post you are addressing here, but I was referring to how violence and aggression are different. In any case, I shall provide an oxford dictionary's definition below if it helps clarify matters.

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

    Violence Definition of violence - Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

    1. behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something:
    • violence erupted in protest marches domestic
    • violence against women
    • the fear of physical violence
    • screen violence

    2. strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force:
    • the violence of her own feelings

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

    Aggression Definition of aggression - Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

    feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront:

    • his chin was jutting with aggression territorial aggression between individuals of the same species
    • the action of attacking without provocation: he called for an end to foreign aggression against his country
    • forcefulness: the sheer volume and aggression of his playing

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

    Frustration Definition of frustration - discontentment, disliked thing and suppression

    1. the feeling of being upset or annoyed as a result of being unable to change or achieve something:

    • tears of frustration rolled down her cheeks
    • an event or circumstance that causes one to feel frustrated: the inherent frustrations of assembly line work

    2. the prevention of the progress, success, or fulfilment of something:

    • the frustration of their wishes

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

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    The word passive does not apply to violence. Violence is and action as you say. Agression can be passive, but any act of agression is not passive.
    In the context of self-defense in protecting oneself and/or of another, violence or a violent act may be apart of a passive stance. This is what I meant by passive forms of violence. Dis-allocating a shoulder or breaking an arm in the midst of a physical confrontation may be considered a violent act by some, even when used in the defense of oneself or of another. Physically disabling an opponent or opponents may be required at times should the evaluation of situation makes it so; particularly if your opponent(s) are relentless, of which their tenacity for commiting acts of violence upon your person or on another can be considered as active forms of violence.

    I hope this helps clarify what I've mentioned in the second portion of my post 14.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    You do come across as rude.
    That is unfortunate, for I was hoping that it wouldn't and I did not mean for it to be so.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What have I said to make you think I don't understand the definitions of these words?

    I think the problem is you're not understanding my way of saying things.
    Well, you did somewhat associate the words violence with violating one's Rights earlier on. Perhaps in some cases, that may be so to a certain extent, but not all violation of an individual's Rights are violent or considered violence. Plus, what I've said about your usage of the word violence with regards to your expansion on Ghandi isn't exactly an accurate use of the word.

    But I think you are right in saying that I do not fully understand some of what you have said or had intend to say. Although I am making an effort to make as much sense from it as I am able to.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    You might want to check the similarity between behavour and act (action). All behaviour is act.
    They are similar but aren't exactly the same. I am not entirely sure which portion of my post you are addressing here, but I was referring to how violence and aggression are different. In any case, I shall provide an oxford dictionary's definition below if it helps clarify matters.

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

    Violence Definition of violence - Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

    1. behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something:
    • violence erupted in protest marches domestic
    • violence against women
    • the fear of physical violence
    • screen violence
    2. strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force:
    • the violence of her own feelings
    --------------------------------

    Aggression Definition of aggression - Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

    feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront:
    • his chin was jutting with aggression territorial aggression between individuals of the same species
    • the action of attacking without provocation: he called for an end to foreign aggression against his country
    • forcefulness: the sheer volume and aggression of his playing
    --------------------------------

    Frustration Definition of frustration - discontentment, disliked thing and suppression

    1. the feeling of being upset or annoyed as a result of being unable to change or achieve something:
    • tears of frustration rolled down her cheeks
    • an event or circumstance that causes one to feel frustrated: the inherent frustrations of assembly line work
    2. the prevention of the progress, success, or fulfilment of something:
    • the frustration of their wishes
    --------------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    The word passive does not apply to violence. Violence is and action as you say. Agression can be passive, but any act of agression is not passive.
    In the context of self-defense in protecting oneself and/or of another, violence or a violent act may be apart of a passive stance. This is what I meant by passive forms of violence. Dis-allocating a shoulder or breaking an arm in the midst of a physical confrontation may be considered a violent act by some, even when used in the defense of oneself or of another. Physically disabling an opponent or opponents may be required at times should the evaluation of situation makes it so; particularly if your opponent(s) are relentless, of which their tenacity for commiting acts of violence upon your person or on another can be considered as active forms of violence.

    I hope this helps clarify what I've mentioned in the second portion of my post 14.
    Thats fine, no offence taken, thank you.

    I do associate violence with violation... If a government is wealthy and the people are poor, that is violence. If a tribes forrest is cut down and the waters are polluted, that is a violation, it is violence. Exactly what ghandi meant, I can not know but i've always assumed he considered it somebodies responsibility that poverty exists. I have to agree.

    I understand what you meant by passive.

    violence (n.) late 13c., "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-Fr. and O.Fr. violence, from L. violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violation). Weakened sense of "improper treatment" is attested from 1590s

    violate (v.) early 15c., "to break" (an oath, etc.), from L. violatus (see violation). Sense of "ravish" is first recorded mid-15c. Related: Violated; violating

    violent (adj.) mid-14c.; see violence. In Middle English the word also was applied in reference to heat, sunlight, smoke, etc., with the sense "having some quality so strongly as to produce a powerful effect." Related: Violently.

    I think we are getting side tracked with the debating of word meanings. Theres a lot of ways to interpret of define words. I still don't see the problem with how violence has been define earlier in this link.

    To break or ravish is also considered violence... it is much more than a physical strike or punch... physical force also means verbal instruction, written instruction, the pen is mightier than the sword.

    lets get back to the nature of people and the causes for violence and try to not argue with each others definitions too much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I think we are getting side tracked with the debating of word meanings. Theres a lot of ways to interpret of define words. I still don't see the problem with how violence has been define earlier in this link.

    To break or ravish is also considered violence... it is much more than a physical strike or punch... physical force also means verbal instruction, written instruction, the pen is mightier than the sword.

    lets get back to the nature of people and the causes for violence and try to not argue with each others definitions too much.
    I disagree. You have posted this in the psychology sub-forum, so you need to use the psychology definition, whatever that may be. Your definition which includes lack of government programs for poor people is way off the mark, and is more of a political statement. Gandhi was not a scientists, and does not belong in a scientific discussion. I'm tempted to move this to politics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I think we are getting side tracked with the debating of word meanings. Theres a lot of ways to interpret of define words. I still don't see the problem with how violence has been define earlier in this link.

    To break or ravish is also considered violence... it is much more than a physical strike or punch... physical force also means verbal instruction, written instruction, the pen is mightier than the sword.

    lets get back to the nature of people and the causes for violence and try to not argue with each others definitions too much.
    I disagree. You have posted this in the psychology sub-forum, so you need to use the psychology definition, whatever that may be. Your definition which includes lack of government programs for poor people is way off the mark, and is more of a political statement. Gandhi was not a scientists, and does not belong in a scientific discussion. I'm tempted to move this to politics.
    I wasn't trying to make any points about ghandi, i just used a quote i've heard which i thought would help to broaden somebodies perspective of the word violence. it got picked up on and we've been discussing it far more than we should have.

    lack of government provisions is not necesarily in my definition of violence. I won't go into anymore detail as I didn't want to discuss politics. This thread is intended to discuss behaviour, occassionally throw away comments will be picked up on and divert the direction of the conversation. I already tried to redirect towards behaviour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    The works I have read seem to favor the idea of "nurture" over "nature" regarding violence. Thus, I believe that violence is a learned behavior, and we are not naturally violent.

    Examples of works that support the idea that violence is learned include: "Why They Kill" by Richard Rhodes and "The Psychology of War" by Lawrence Leshan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    The works I have read seem to favor the idea of "nurture" over "nature" regarding violence. Thus, I believe that violence is a learned behavior, and we are not naturally violent.

    Examples of works that support the idea that violence is learned include: "Why They Kill" by Richard Rhodes and "The Psychology of War" by Lawrence Leshan.
    That was exactly what i thought about it.

    thanks dedo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    We cannot "nurture" or teach capacities that we don't have innately. No matter how earnestly we try, we will never teach our children to fly.

    Violence is an innate propensity that is pretty useful in some circumstances. Socialisation is about teaching ourselves which circumstances are and are not appropriate to respond to with violence.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    We cannot "nurture" or teach capacities that we don't have innately. No matter how earnestly we try, we will never teach our children to fly.

    Violence is an innate propensity that is pretty useful in some circumstances. Socialisation is about teaching ourselves which circumstances are and are not appropriate to respond to with violence.
    Isn't it possible that natural agression is nurtured into violence?

    You say we can't teach our offspring to fly but according to the leading theory... we come from the same organisms that did go on to learn how to fly... I presume you subscribe to evolution and common descent?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Isn't it possible that natural agression is nurtured into violence?
    Perhaps you should do a few hours observation in the toddlers section of a childcare centre. Aggression and violence are pretty well indistinguishable at that age.

    Nurture is really about teaching kicking, hitting, pushing, biting, grabbing children to keep their hands, elbows and feet to themselves.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    lets get back to the nature of people and the causes for violence and try to not argue with each others definitions too much.
    When a butcher slices a piece of meat in a market, rarely do people associate that act as being violent. But when a butcher hacks a carcass into smaller chunks, some people might associate that act as being violent if the butcher displayed a certain emotion behind that act; such as a "gleam in his eyes". If I were to throw, smash, or perhaps even drop a vase, that can be interpreted as a violent act depending on the emotions and intent that I might possess at the time.

    What I am bringing to the table now is that similar to what I have posted earlier. That the display of violence or a violent act may or may not have been a result of aggression brought on by say; frustration. People can commit what some may consider a violent act even if there is a lack of emotion behind it. So, it's not entirely accurate in saying that a or the default position of violence is the result of aggression. I say this because I was tutored a little in martial arts as a child, and have on occasion habitually used what I have learnt in my adult life with little or no aggression that I was able to observe (not exactly what I consider as scientific; just a personal obersvation). Violence; in context of what I have just said is an act of violent behavior; an observed action resulting in what is in-line with oxford dictionary's definition of it.

    An outcome of a maneuver can be seen as violence (depending on what was achieved), aggression can be seen as the attitude one has when performing the maneuver, frustration can be (for a lack of a better word after just woken up after a night's rest) the source or feelings that one taps into to fuel his/her aggression. I hope what I have just shared helps shed some light on the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    The works I have read seem to favor the idea of "nurture" over "nature" regarding violence. Thus, I believe that violence is a learned behavior, and we are not naturally violent.

    Examples of works that support the idea that violence is learned include: "Why They Kill" by Richard Rhodes and "The Psychology of War" by Lawrence Leshan.
    That was exactly what i thought about it.

    thanks dedo.
    You are welcome.

    I hope to spend more time on this later this year since I am interested in group violence, where the cause is unknown. One author (Staub) thought genocide might be related to some learned cultural factor like corporal punishment.

    A criminal violence scholar, Lonnie Athens, isolated four key learned behaviors that he said were responsible for creating violent criminals. Richard Rhodes reviews Athens' work in "Why They Kill".

    The military has had a hard time getting soldiers to kill, and they had to refine their training to teach this. Interestingly, one of the 4 key behaviors outlined by Athens was "violent coaching".

    In the civil war, a large percentage of soldiers refused to fire their weapons even in the face of enemy fire while the soldiers were in an infantry assault. Some people even "pretended to fire", and double or even triple loaded their rifles (rendering the rifle useless), rather than fire on the enemy.

    Finally, some societies seem to be highly resistant to group violence. My interest, is seeing as a matter of policy if there is anything we can learn from these societies to make group violence "less likely" or "unlearned".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I hope to spend more time on this later this year since I am interested in group violence, where the cause is unknown. One author (Staub) thought genocide might be related to some learned cultural factor like corporal punishment.
    I find this interesting on a personal level because of the training I have received as a child, I am able to commit (sometimes extreme forms of) violent acts if I do not or am able to suppress my more aggressive emotions. I think everyone has that side of their persona, not necessarily due to the current situation their may be in. Violence that arises from aggression is an one of the few outlets for these emotions if I am not mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    A criminal violence scholar, Lonnie Athens, isolated four key learned behaviors that he said were responsible for creating violent criminals. Richard Rhodes reviews Athens' work in "Why They Kill".

    The military has had a hard time getting soldiers to kill, and they had to refine their training to teach this. Interestingly, one of the 4 key behaviors outlined by Athens was "violent coaching".

    In the civil war, a large percentage of soldiers refused to fire their weapons even in the face of enemy fire while the soldiers were in an infantry assault. Some people even "pretended to fire", and double or even triple loaded their rifles (rendering the rifle useless), rather than fire on the enemy.

    Finally, some societies seem to be highly resistant to group violence. My interest, is seeing as a matter of policy if there is anything we can learn from these societies to make group violence "less likely" or "unlearned".
    In my country, we have what is called the national service as a form of compulsory conscription for 2-3 years of military training for every able bodied male citizen upon reaching the age of 18. Although the training does not cover how to manage aggression to any practical sense in self defense or in defense of the nation, I often have wondered if going in that direction would have help channel our more aggressive tendencies in a more productive manner.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    As an exercise, I will ask whether some of you will identify the following video as being violent or consist of violence (even with the obvious humor it comes with). Can you relate to Wile E. Coyote's predicament? As you watch it, note how our moods and feelings are changed from one form to another.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Isn't it possible that natural agression is nurtured into violence?
    Perhaps you should do a few hours observation in the toddlers section of a childcare centre. Aggression and violence are pretty well indistinguishable at that age.

    Nurture is really about teaching kicking, hitting, pushing, biting, grabbing children to keep their hands, elbows and feet to themselves.
    Isn't nurture taking a baby away from it's mother and putting it with a load of other toddlers? My neice is a little madamn... but she isn't violent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    lets get back to the nature of people and the causes for violence and try to not argue with each others definitions too much.
    When a butcher slices a piece of meat in a market, rarely do people associate that act as being violent. But when a butcher hacks a carcass into smaller chunks, some people might associate that act as being violent if the butcher displayed a certain emotion behind that act; such as a "gleam in his eyes". If I were to throw, smash, or perhaps even drop a vase, that can be interpreted as a violent act depending on the emotions and intent that I might possess at the time.

    What I am bringing to the table now is that similar to what I have posted earlier. That the display of violence or a violent act may or may not have been a result of aggression brought on by say; frustration. People can commit what some may consider a violent act even if there is a lack of emotion behind it. So, it's not entirely accurate in saying that a or the default position of violence is the result of aggression. I say this because I was tutored a little in martial arts as a child, and have on occasion habitually used what I have learnt in my adult life with little or no aggression that I was able to observe (not exactly what I consider as scientific; just a personal obersvation). Violence; in context of what I have just said is an act of violent behavior; an observed action resulting in what is in-line with oxford dictionary's definition of it.

    An outcome of a maneuver can be seen as violence (depending on what was achieved), aggression can be seen as the attitude one has when performing the maneuver, frustration can be (for a lack of a better word after just woken up after a night's rest) the source or feelings that one taps into to fuel his/her aggression. I hope what I have just shared helps shed some light on the subject.
    Yes all perfectly well understood thanks scooby.

    I'v done some martial arts myself and i'd say agression isn't desirable, neither is emotion of any kind. you go through the defensive manouvers over and over again until they became second nature... then in a moment of being attacked you respond automatically without emotion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    The works I have read seem to favor the idea of "nurture" over "nature" regarding violence. Thus, I believe that violence is a learned behavior, and we are not naturally violent.

    Examples of works that support the idea that violence is learned include: "Why They Kill" by Richard Rhodes and "The Psychology of War" by Lawrence Leshan.
    That was exactly what i thought about it.

    thanks dedo.
    You are welcome.

    I hope to spend more time on this later this year since I am interested in group violence, where the cause is unknown. One author (Staub) thought genocide might be related to some learned cultural factor like corporal punishment.

    A criminal violence scholar, Lonnie Athens, isolated four key learned behaviors that he said were responsible for creating violent criminals. Richard Rhodes reviews Athens' work in "Why They Kill".

    The military has had a hard time getting soldiers to kill, and they had to refine their training to teach this. Interestingly, one of the 4 key behaviors outlined by Athens was "violent coaching".

    In the civil war, a large percentage of soldiers refused to fire their weapons even in the face of enemy fire while the soldiers were in an infantry assault. Some people even "pretended to fire", and double or even triple loaded their rifles (rendering the rifle useless), rather than fire on the enemy.

    Finally, some societies seem to be highly resistant to group violence. My interest, is seeing as a matter of policy if there is anything we can learn from these societies to make group violence "less likely" or "unlearned".
    very interesting dedo... I saw a documentary a few years ago on how the military study psycho's in order to train there own men... They put it down to a certain gene if i remember rightly, was it the alph gene? I don't remember now. one of the scientists found he had the alpha gene, the ability to kill without remorse or empathy. but as the scientist had a good upbringing, violent behaviour never surfaced for him. It takes an outside influence to trigger the act of unremorsed violence.

    Group behaviour is another very interesting topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I hope to spend more time on this later this year since I am interested in group violence, where the cause is unknown. One author (Staub) thought genocide might be related to some learned cultural factor like corporal punishment.
    I find this interesting on a personal level because of the training I have received as a child, I am able to commit (sometimes extreme forms of) violent acts if I do not or am able to suppress my more aggressive emotions. I think everyone has that side of their persona, not necessarily due to the current situation their may be in. Violence that arises from aggression is an one of the few outlets for these emotions if I am not mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    A criminal violence scholar, Lonnie Athens, isolated four key learned behaviors that he said were responsible for creating violent criminals. Richard Rhodes reviews Athens' work in "Why They Kill".

    The military has had a hard time getting soldiers to kill, and they had to refine their training to teach this. Interestingly, one of the 4 key behaviors outlined by Athens was "violent coaching".

    In the civil war, a large percentage of soldiers refused to fire their weapons even in the face of enemy fire while the soldiers were in an infantry assault. Some people even "pretended to fire", and double or even triple loaded their rifles (rendering the rifle useless), rather than fire on the enemy.

    Finally, some societies seem to be highly resistant to group violence. My interest, is seeing as a matter of policy if there is anything we can learn from these societies to make group violence "less likely" or "unlearned".
    In my country, we have what is called the national service as a form of compulsory conscription for 2-3 years of military training for every able bodied male citizen upon reaching the age of 18. Although the training does not cover how to manage aggression to any practical sense in self defense or in defense of the nation, I often have wondered if going in that direction would have help channel our more aggressive tendencies in a more productive manner.
    I think the product of agressive tendencies will tend to be violence, did you mean constructive? how would you channel agression onstructively?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Creche arrangements are common in all kinds of societies throughout history for infants that have passed the stage of needing constant feeding. Chiefly through assembling all grandma's or aunties' littlies together while the (younger, fitter) mothers go off to markets or to fieldwork. Grandmothers are often the main teachers of foraging skills.

    They're also surprisingly common in other species - as well as the usual habits of leaving younglings behind, alone or in groups, in burrows or nests while parents forage or hunt to feed them. The Australian Galah - Article 049 Meerkats, lions and several other animals have "babysitting" arrangements, adolescent beavers help out with care and grooming of younger siblings.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    As an exercise, I will ask whether some of you will identify the following video as being violent or consist of violence (even with the obvious humor it comes with). Can you relate to Wile E. Coyote's predicament? As you watch it, note how our moods and feelings are changed from one form to another.

    yes ofcourse it is easy to relate to wiley, thats the whole idea. for me this is a great example of how violence is nurtured from a young age. violence and attempted murder is affectively made humorous. I don't want to come across as a total square here, it's only a cartoon, but it is targeted at very young children.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Creche arrangements are common in all kinds of societies throughout history for infants that have passed the stage of needing constant feeding. Chiefly through assembling all grandma's or aunties' littlies together while the (younger, fitter) mothers go off to markets or to fieldwork. Grandmothers are often the main teachers of foraging skills.

    They're also surprisingly common in other species - as well as the usual habits of leaving younglings behind, alone or in groups, in burrows or nests while parents forage or hunt to feed them. The Australian Galah - Article 049 Meerkats, lions and several other animals have "babysitting" arrangements, adolescent beavers help out with care and grooming of younger siblings.
    I don't think it's all that common throughout entire history of society. But yes kids do play fight. As a youngster I saw it as a way to establish my position within my hierachy, but it isn't violence in my opinion... it's play fighting, it's establishing the pecking order.

    Bullying is violence... squaring up and gauging strength is a way to establish hierachy, that begins at a young age. If one is blatantly weaker than the other then there is no need to test strength in order to know your position... therefor if the strong one still wants to throw the little one around, thats violence and bullying. IMO

    I used to compare us with the animal kingdom and think if they do it, then it's natural for us and i still think there is a lot of truth in that. But we as humans have taken violence way beyond what any of the animals do, when really, shouldn't we be able to be a lot bigger than wild animals? shouldn't we know better?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    I find this interesting on a personal level because of the training I have received as a child, I am able to commit (sometimes extreme forms of) violent acts if I do not or am able to suppress my more aggressive emotions. I think everyone has that side of their persona, not necessarily due to the current situation their may be in. Violence that arises from aggression is an one of the few outlets for these emotions if I am not mistaken.


    In my country, we have what is called the national service as a form of compulsory conscription for 2-3 years of military training for every able bodied male citizen upon reaching the age of 18. Although the training does not cover how to manage aggression to any practical sense in self defense or in defense of the nation, I often have wondered if going in that direction would have help channel our more aggressive tendencies in a more productive manner.
    A predisposition toward violence may be reversible. My recollection is that the criminologist, Lonnie Athens, grew up in a violent environment and he was rescued. I think he attributes his rescue to a priest.

    The book, "Why They Kill" goes into Athens' history more.

    Thus, if you feel you have had this exposure, it may be possible to reverse it.

    A social worker would know more about any specific techniques / practices that are known to be effective.

    Since I am a theist, I also believe that staying close to God helps, or at least can help direct us in the right direction.

    It helped Athens.

    You are correct in that it is probably something that should be addressed in organizations that train people to use violence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Thus, if you feel you have had this exposure, it may be possible to reverse it.
    'Reversing' it is a pretty big ask.

    There's quite a lot of research now being done on people who grow up psychologically healthy despite coming from violent, chaotic or otherwise damaging households. Some schoolteachers are amazed to see some children turn up to school every day - on time, in clean clothes, with a packed lunch - when they know that the child's household is a filthy, rowdy, chaotic, drug and alcohol drenched hellhole. Some such children manage to achieve the same for their younger brothers and sisters - and neither brag nor complain about the amount of work they have to do to get it all done.

    "Resilience" is the new buzzword. We don't yet have a good handle on how we can promote such resilience in children before they are damaged by violent, mentally ill or neglectful parents. We certainly have failed dismally in helping people who've grown up as toxic as the toxic families that damaged them in the first place.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    People who exhibit toxic behaviour, pass the toxic behaviour on to thier young (often) and recieved it from thier parents (often).

    Are the families that exhibit toxic behaviour the cause of the problem? or are they victims?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Are the families that exhibit toxic behaviour the cause of the problem? or are they victims?
    They are both.

    But the fact that violent or abusive parents were very likely victims of violence and other abuse themselves does not mean that we shouldn't do what we can to prevent them having the same effect on their own children.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    People who exhibit toxic behaviour, pass the toxic behaviour on to thier young (often) and recieved it from thier parents (often).

    Are the families that exhibit toxic behaviour the cause of the problem? or are they victims?
    Is this issue so black and white that they cannot be both?

    EDIT: Well apparently adelady beat me to this conclusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    A predisposition toward violence may be reversible. My recollection is that the criminologist, Lonnie Athens, grew up in a violent environment and he was rescued. I think he attributes his rescue to a priest.

    The book, "Why They Kill" goes into Athens' history more.
    Thank you, I will definitely look it up. I have always had an interest with what goes on in the minds of another and how they process information and deal with their emotions.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    Thus, if you feel you have had this exposure, it may be possible to reverse it.
    I do not consider myself as a violent or aggressive person, but I do not think that I am at the stage where I need it to be reversed or want to reserve it even if I were. My outlook on violence and aggression is that it is apart of who we are (or at the very least who I am) as a species. We may have socially evolved to frown upon senseless violence, and even enacted laws to deal with violence, but aggression is and can still be a behavior that can be channeled into more meaningful uses; like friendly competitiveness; say in sports or in a work environment, assertiveness in a given situation, etc. in a civilized manner.

    In a sense, I accept that as a person, I am prone to many kinds of emotions. Some more negative than others. I tend to manage these emotions and allow them to manifest themselves through outlets such as sports, and feed on them to fuel my drive to achieve a set objective. I do not favor merely repressing them, but I do suppress them till the moment arises where I can channel them in a more controlled manner. That or I practice deconstructing them to the point of where I understand why I feel the way I do, why I harbor these emotions, whether I've place some form of expectation on matters that are beyond my control, etc. and eventually allow them to fade away.

    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    You are correct in that it is probably something that should be addressed in organizations that train people to use violence.
    I pretty much feel the same way. Not everyone can or is able to deal with the raw emotions that feeds aggression, and yet are able to independently arrive at a state where they can or even want to suppress them at will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Yes all perfectly well understood thanks scooby.

    I'v done some martial arts myself and i'd say agression isn't desirable, neither is emotion of any kind. you go through the defensive manouvers over and over again until they became second nature... then in a moment of being attacked you respond automatically without emotion.
    You are welcomed. Most of what I have posted are personal observations and some from study, but I do hope they help provide some insight into the matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    People who exhibit toxic behaviour, pass the toxic behaviour on to thier young (often) and recieved it from thier parents (often).

    Are the families that exhibit toxic behaviour the cause of the problem? or are they victims?
    Is this issue so black and white that they cannot be both?

    EDIT: Well apparently adelady beat me to this conclusion.
    She did indeed.

    well can they be both? They certainly cause problems due to their toxic behaviour. But if you take the problem as one whole... then are they the cause or the victim?

    It's an obvious black and white open and shut case of these people being victims. Victims of low capitol, poor education, violence/traumatic experience, victims of a system that doesn't serve them.

    What are they the cause of? the cause of middle class condemnation? the cause of your superiority complex? the cause for you paying your taxes and working hard for your society? the cause of your sense of privallidge? What are they the cause of?

    There is only usually one cause for something isn't there? the rest is knock on effects originating from the initial cause... surely?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    What are they the cause of? the cause of middle class condemnation?
    Are you suggesting that violence and other abuse is not a problem in middle class families?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    What are they the cause of? the cause of middle class condemnation?
    Are you suggesting that violence and other abuse is not a problem in middle class families?
    Nope... if you will remember we are still talking about the famillies you described earlier:

    " Some schoolteachers are amazed to see some children turn up to school every day - on time, in clean clothes, with a packed lunch - when they know that the child's household is a filthy, rowdy, chaotic, drug and alcohol drenched hellhole."

    That dooesn't sound much like a typical middle class family to me... We are talking about these very toxic famillies... The description you gave of 'rowdy chaotic drug and alcohol fuelled hellholes' does not conform to my interpretation of middle class. How about in your part of the world?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Are you suggesting that violence and other abuse is not a problem in middle class families?
    Or even the upper class families for that matter.

    Domestic abuse and violence aren't restricted to any particular class of people. I personally do not like using the word "class", but since this line of discussion is merely using it to help identify if different income groups suffer the same abuse, I think it is acceptable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Thus, if you feel you have had this exposure, it may be possible to reverse it.
    'Reversing' it is a pretty big ask.

    There's quite a lot of research now being done on people who grow up psychologically healthy despite coming from violent, chaotic or otherwise damaging households. Some schoolteachers are amazed to see some children turn up to school every day - on time, in clean clothes, with a packed lunch - when they know that the child's household is a filthy, rowdy, chaotic, drug and alcohol drenched hellhole. Some such children manage to achieve the same for their younger brothers and sisters - and neither brag nor complain about the amount of work they have to do to get it all done.

    "Resilience" is the new buzzword. We don't yet have a good handle on how we can promote such resilience in children before they are damaged by violent, mentally ill or neglectful parents. We certainly have failed dismally in helping people who've grown up as toxic as the toxic families that damaged them in the first place.
    Fascinating, at least now I have another literature search term to use -- "resilience".

    This research sounds like another place to look for potential practices that make people "violence resistant".

    Perhaps there are some common practices between "resilient" children, and children raised in "peaceful societies"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Ressiliance eh?


    If a kid is subjected to violence... how do you define being resilliant to it? by not copying it? or repeating it? Whats resilliance exactly? ressiliant towards the mimicary of bad behaviour?

    I was very ressiliant when it came to most of my teachers at school... very ressiliant to there influence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Resilience? Some kids seem able to "bring themselves up" to be responsible and decent regardless of their environment.

    Most kids in neglectful or chaotic or abusive households show obvious signs, a few show subtle signs, that they're in real trouble. But there are a rare few who always do their homework, usually prepare their own and sometimes the whole family's meals, usually manage to keep their clothing and grooming straight without ever showing any sign that there's anything amiss at all.

    Most importantly, they do it without any fuss. No complaints, no mood swings, no acting out, no bad behaviour of any kind. I think originally someone described these as "Teflon children". The bad stuff in their lives just doesn't stick to them. They don't seem tough or unusual in any obvious way. But they somehow manage to become and to remain sane, sensible and competent despite never meeting an adult at home who meets any such description - let alone getting any of that positive, supportive or helpful parental behaviour that everyone tells us is so vital.

    Sometimes schools don't even realise there are problems in some households until they come across the parents or the residence for some other reason (- or another child from the same family exhibits the common behaviours of such neglected children). It's always a bit of a shock because teachers can usually identify pretty quickly when kids are from badly dysfunctional families. These kids don't just hold themselves together, some of them manage the whole family.

    It's a bit of a wake-up call for some of us who take pride in our good parenting. It's entirely possible that many of our well-behaved children might have been like that anyway. But who'd want to throw that dice.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Well you know what i think about it adelady...

    I think good behaviour is natural and common... bad behaviour is the perversion of our nature. Usually caused by some kind of suffering which i call pathology (though really pathology is probably supposed to mean the study of suffering?).

    In a way, rewarding good behaviour might send signals that it is not entirely natural.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It should be no mystery why evolution makes us violent. Human progress has been much faster than evolution is able to move. We should expect we would still possess the genetic traits our ancestors had before society existed. Not because they are appropriate, but because they haven't had time to change yet. It would probably take at least another 50,000 years to get genetically adapted to modern society..... by which time those adaptations will be horribly outdated again.


    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Resilience? Some kids seem able to "bring themselves up" to be responsible and decent regardless of their environment.
    I tend to think the resilient children's parents must be putting certain limits on their abusiveness, though. In some violent families, the parents would feel insecure about a child "outdoing" them, and take action against it. Maybe some other parents who are horrible know what they are, and come to terms with it enough to at least be congratulatory toward the child who is taking over and doing their job for them?

    Perhaps some people learn by contrast. I got horribly mediocre grades in High School, but was able to persuade my sister to do differently by making it apparent to her that she would be "better than me" if she could do so, and she would be "as bad as me" if she didn't. I also laughed at her for being like me. Her grades changed within a semester of that conversation.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Maybe some other parents who are horrible know what they are, and come to terms with it enough to at least be congratulatory toward the child who is taking over and doing their job for them?
    One thing you overlook. The great majority of these people wouldn't even notice. And the rest wouldn't care what the child did so long as they kept out of the way.

    The idea of congratulating anyone for anything at all would be beyond their understanding. Getting back to the victim notion, most of these people have neither heard nor uttered a kind word in their lives.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    A couple of comments.

    First : today represents the least violent time of any in human history, and probably prehistory.
    Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence - YouTube
    This is also a time, when what little violence happens is massively over-reported. We actually live in societies with very little true violence. For example : the murder rate today varies from 1.2 (England) homicides per 100,000 people per year, up to 4.7 (USA) in western countries. In Medieval England, it was 100.

    Official violence is also way down. Executions are relatively uncommon (except in China), and totally prohibited in most western nations. Torture is prohibited. Maimings as punishment are prohibited, except in Muslim nations.

    While things like wife beatings still occur, they are now seriously frowned upon, and can result in prosecutions. Not long ago men had the legal right to beat their wives. Indeed, they were often advised to.

    Even wars are killing far fewer people today. If we rate casualties in war as a percentage of the male population killed in war, globally this has been dropping since the end of WWII.

    And here is something for the theists among us.
    The most violent time in the last 2,000 years is that period known as the Dark Ages, in which military adventures were glorified, and other activities included sacking villages, raping women, torturing prisoners, executing thieves, cutting the hands off pick pockets, wholesale killings of entire populations, and more. This period was also the most religious period in Christian history, and the time in which the church was at its strongest. The church was one of the bodies exhorting even more violence against its enemies, against stroppy women, and against any person considered a criminal.
    adelady and westwind like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I agree that the dark ages were violent times for some... But I have know idea how you can know about pre history and pre civilisation/society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    about pre history and pre civilisation/society.
    That's what anthropologists and archaeologists are for. And there's a lot of work done by anthropologists over the last century or so with groups that have always been isolated from contact with other groups.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    about pre history and pre civilisation/society.
    That's what anthropologists and archaeologists are for. And there's a lot of work done by anthropologists over the last century or so with groups that have always been isolated from contact with other groups.
    Firstly I would say... if we have archeologic evidence from 'pre history' then it automatically become history, rather than prehistory...

    Speaking of isolated people, you guys have seen bruce parry's series called 'tribe' right? I remember one isolated tribe in south america, they have NO violence whatso ever within there comunity. When some of the young tribe members go to so called civilisation (the nearest city) in order to get an education and a different way of life (mo money!) they then witness and become involved in violence and drugs and sex.

    That for me, indicates very strongly, that 'natural' people from 'primative' cultures are not violent by nature. It is societies where people want control and power and money, where violent behaviour florishes.

    You may point out some tribes where violence is common, like maybe in the congo or somewhere... but i have no idea about the history of those tribal comunities or how the violence originated, therefor i could discuss that. But if they have guns, then they havve been touched at some point by 'civilisation', and so are not isolated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Firstly I would say... if we have archeologic evidence from 'pre history' then it automatically become history, rather than prehistory...

    Speaking of isolated people, you guys have seen bruce parry's series called 'tribe' right? I remember one isolated tribe in south america, they have NO violence whatso ever within there comunity. When some of the young tribe members go to so called civilisation (the nearest city) in order to get an education and a different way of life (mo money!) they then witness and become involved in violence and drugs and sex.

    That for me, indicates very strongly, that 'natural' people from 'primative' cultures are not violent by nature. It is societies where people want control and power and money, where violent behaviour florishes.

    You may point out some tribes where violence is common, like maybe in the congo or somewhere... but i have no idea about the history of those tribal comunities or how the violence originated, therefor i could discuss that. But if they have guns, then they havve been touched at some point by 'civilisation', and so are not isolated.
    No, that's wrong. History means there is a written language, and people are recording events when they happen. We learn about prehistorical violence by finding human remains with arrows embedded, crushed skulls, and such. Oetzi the ice man found in the Alps is one example. He had an arrow wound in his shoulder.

    Your definition of "natural" is arbitrary, and just supports your preconceived idea. Perhaps the tribe without violence was isolated enough that they just never came into contact with other tribes competing for the same resources.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Like other animals, it's part of our survival repertoire of behaviors--of course human violence is natural.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Firstly I would say... if we have archeologic evidence from 'pre history' then it automatically become history, rather than prehistory...
    I think the convention is that history relates to those periods and events for which we have contemporary written reports. Archaeological techniques can be applied to events, or practices that were incompletely documented at the time, or for which the records have been lost. For example, tracing trench locations from WWI.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Speaking of isolated people, you guys have seen bruce parry's series called 'tribe' right? I remember one isolated tribe in south america, they have NO violence whatso ever within there comunity. When some of the young tribe members go to so called civilisation (the nearest city) in order to get an education and a different way of life (mo money!) they then witness and become involved in violence and drugs and sex.

    That for me, indicates very strongly, that 'natural' people from 'primative' cultures are not violent by nature. It is societies where people want control and power and money, where violent behaviour florishes.
    It is unscientific and illogical to state that because one primitive tribe was free of violence that therefore all primitive tribes were free of violence. You need to look at a range of tribes, including taking into account the possibility of contamination that you raise. This paper provides an interesting take on the issue that seems to be at odds with your conclusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Well you know what i think about it adelady...

    I think good behaviour is natural and common... bad behaviour is the perversion of our nature. Usually caused by some kind of suffering which i call pathology (though really pathology is probably supposed to mean the study of suffering?).

    In a way, rewarding good behaviour might send signals that it is not entirely natural.
    Im just jumping in without carefully checking the past in this thread.
    I QUOTE:Usually caused by some kind of suffering
    Perhaps so... but its an empiricaly yet not decided matter?
    We have by evolution a sense of right and wrong.
    Every newborn has a copy (allele?) of it, and as everything else
    in our constitution there may be something disadvantageous in the personal copy.

    If I should have felt an urge to kill somebody I would decide to fight my copy,
    saying it is surely not right to kill unless its necessary for survival!
    Something is wrong with my moral sense!
    But luckily my sense of ethics is stronger!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    We have by evolution a sense of right and wrong.
    Every newborn has a copy (allele?) of it, and as everything else
    How do you know this? I think that to prove that a newborn has a sense of right and wrong, the newborn would have to be raised in isolation, not being taught about right and wrong by its parents or anyone else. Has this been done?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Harold and John, thanks for your definitions of 'prehistory'.

    Harold: if what you say is true... does this mean that findings and discoveries from 200 yrs ago, could be considered prehistory because it doesn't have any written records from the time? I didn't give a definition of natural, so it cannot support my preconcieved Idea... you make having a pre conceived idea sound like a bad thing? it's the starting point for investigation, as long as i'm open to evidence for and against that idea then all is well.

    John: I didn't state that as one tribe is non violent, they all are, I raised the fact that some tribes are violent. It is in fact illogical to claim that I said that.

    Lynx Fox: You're idea echos other opinions posted earlier in the thread... for the puposes of this discussion I attempted to distinguish between agression and violence... I tried to argue that agression is a defence mechanism, and violence can be thought of as a form of attack. This may not be perfectly in line with dictionairy definitions, we don't need to go through that again, i'm just trying to distinguish between necesary 'violence', our inate defense mechanism... and manipulation of that defense mechanism in order to encourage violent acts.

    In fact some of us have a more inate ability to do violence than others, it's in the genes, as mention earlier in this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    We have by evolution a sense of right and wrong.
    Every newborn has a copy (allele?) of it, and as everything else
    How do you know this? I think that to prove that a newborn has a sense of right and wrong, the newborn would have to be raised in isolation, not being taught about right and wrong by its parents or anyone else. Has this been done?
    Not to my knowledge! If experimenting to confirm my view is to be done it should be done on lower animals.
    My "knowledge" in this matter comes not by exhibiting an object.
    I adjust the term "instinct": claiming instincts and moral decisions to be equivalent.
    Possibly making morality a scientifically researchable subject.
    (In higher animals instincts are modified by reason, perhaps making "ethics" adjustable as well.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Harold: if what you say is true... does this mean that findings and discoveries from 200 yrs ago, could be considered prehistory because it doesn't have any written records from the time? I didn't give a definition of natural, so it cannot support my preconcieved Idea... you make having a pre conceived idea sound like a bad thing? it's the starting point for investigation, as long as i'm open to evidence for and against that idea then all is well.
    Prehistory means "before history." An event that occurs during historical times, but is not recorded in a written document, would have to be investigated in a similar manner to prehistorical events. Why are you getting hung up on definitions like this?
    A hypothesis can be viewed as a preconceived idea; however it has to be open to falsification. If you are just going to warp your definition, by molding your perception of the facts to fit your preconception, then there would be no way of disproving your hypothesis.
    In fact some of us have a more inate ability to do violence than others, it's in the genes, as mention earlier in this thread.
    It may have been mentioned. Was there any evidence provided for it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    My "knowledge" in this matter comes not by exhibiting an object.
    I adjust the term "instinct": claiming instincts and moral decisions to be equivalent.
    Possibly making morality a scientifically researchable subject.
    (In higher animals instincts are modified by reason, perhaps making "ethics" adjustable as well.)
    This is just meaningless gobbledegook. You define instincts to be equivalent to moral decisions, and that is supposed to prove your point?
    In higher animals, instincts are modified by learning, not necessarily by reason. The learning could be completely unreasonable. If ethics are adjustable, then how would they be instinctive?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Harold, on what you say to sigurd... The very nature of right and wrong is dabatable in itself.
    To see if something has a natural sense of something, would it be necesary for it to be reared in a normal way?

    John: reading through the paper you linked, I soon found this:

    "Zoologists have gathered substantial evidence concerning an ethological balance, namely: the more powerful a species' natural killing power is the stronger is the inhibition of intra-species aggression. Summing up remarkable observations in his brilliant book about aggression, Lorenz noted that we ought to regret not having the ‘nature of the predator’. For had humans descended from lions instead of biologically harmless Australopithecus, he explained, we would have had a much stronger aggression-retention instinct preventing warfare (Lorenz 1981).
    In the meantime, however, calculations have demonstrated that lions (and other strong predators) kill each other
    more frequently than humans, relative to their population (Wilson 1978). This result looked sensational for certain reasons. First, it is not denied that lions, unlike humans, have a strong instinctive ban on killing conspecifies. Second, lions' natural population density is much less than that of human communities, whereas concentration usually increases aggression among both animals and humans. Third, ‘killing facilities’ are incomparable: the assaulting lion's sharp teeth meet the enemy's strong pelt, while mutual killing among humans who are armed if only with stones, is technically very easy, and since the Stone Age, weapons' ‘progress’ has been tremendous.

    This implies that humans evolved from the 'biologically harmless' australopithecus.
    It's also indicates that man didn't have the natural capabilities to kill (with ease) until the stone age when weapons were developed. So it is our cooperation in technological advances which has made us more deadly and increased our violent potential.
    It's also confirms that violent incidents increase relative to population. Our society does encourage higher populations and we do see more violence in towns and cities, which are by no means the natural habitats we evolved in for much of our existence, and are the most removed from the usual habitat and way of living of our ancestors.
    Lorenze claims we do not have the nature of the predator... he claims we should regret that we aren't evolved from predators becuase if we were, that would somehow prevent war.. Unless i'm mistaken, he does not justify or even attempt to explain this.


    Last but by no means least, check out australopithecus afarensis:



    Hot, or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    My "knowledge" in this matter comes not by exhibiting an object.
    I adjust the term "instinct": claiming instincts and moral decisions to be equivalent.
    Possibly making morality a scientifically researchable subject.
    (In higher animals instincts are modified by reason, perhaps making "ethics" adjustable as well.)
    This is just meaningless gobbledegook. You define instincts to be equivalent to moral decisions, and that is supposed to prove your point?
    In higher animals, instincts are modified by learning, not necessarily by reason. The learning could be completely unreasonable. If ethics are adjustable, then how would they be instinctive?
    Proving! Where did I try to do that? QUOTE ME ON THAT!
    What wrong is there in supposing that instincts are equivalents of moral choices?
    Have you evidence for the contrary? Or PROOF!

    next you say:
    instincts are modified by learning, not necessarily by reason.

    you mean teaching in the way of Pavlov?

    Please prove that reason is not involved when humans learn!

    Ethics is about whether a moral statement, instinct as I see it , is right or wrong isnt it?
    If so then both reason and instinct is involved in ethical matters.

    And a scientific approach is possible.

    I aint gonna argue more on this unless youre stupid about it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Harold: if what you say is true... does this mean that findings and discoveries from 200 yrs ago, could be considered prehistory because it doesn't have any written records from the time? I didn't give a definition of natural, so it cannot support my preconcieved Idea... you make having a pre conceived idea sound like a bad thing? it's the starting point for investigation, as long as i'm open to evidence for and against that idea then all is well.
    Prehistory means "before history." An event that occurs during historical times, but is not recorded in a written document, would have to be investigated in a similar manner to prehistorical events. Why are you getting hung up on definitions like this?
    A hypothesis can be viewed as a preconceived idea; however it has to be open to falsification. If you are just going to warp your definition, by molding your perception of the facts to fit your preconception, then there would be no way of disproving your hypothesis.
    In fact some of us have a more inate ability to do violence than others, it's in the genes, as mention earlier in this thread.
    It may have been mentioned. Was there any evidence provided for it?
    I wasn't getting hung up on the deifinition of pre history... I agreed that prehistory is pre history... If something such as a bone or another artifact is known and recorded, then it is a part of our written history. it's you who has joined in this conversation and attempted to define the word prehistory, in such a way that it has become meaningless IMO. If there is enough evidence to come up with a story, then thats what is called his-story. If there is no story relating to evidence... then it is prehistory until it becomes history. IMO. I thought it was you who unecesarily complicated the definition of prehistory and when i pointed out a flaw in your definition you accused me of getting hung up over it... you can't have one standard for me and another for you. I've heard your definitions, you've heard mine, hopefully we have both learnt something valuable, lets leave it at that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    The enlightened possess understanding
    So profound they can not be understood.
    Because they cannot be understood
    I can only describe their appearance:

    Cautious as one crossing thin ice,
    Undecided as one surrounded by danger,
    Modest as one who is a guest,
    Unbounded as melting ice,
    Genuine as unshaped wood,
    Broad as a valley,
    Seamless as muddy water.


    That ones for you sigurd.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Powerful men are well advised not to use violence,
    For violence has a habit of returning;
    Thorns and weeds grow wherever an army goes,
    And lean years follow a great war.

    A general is well advised
    To achieve nothing more than his orders:
    Not to take advantage of his victory.
    Nor to glory, boast or pride himself;
    To do what is dictated by necessity,
    But not by choice.

    For even the strongest force will weaken with time,
    And then its violence will return, and kill it.



    This ones for the thread,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    if there is enough evidence to come up with a story, then thats what is called his-story.
    lol!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Harold, on what you say to sigurd... The very nature of right and wrong is dabatable in itself.
    To see if something has a natural sense of something, would it be necesary for it to be reared in a normal way?
    I don't know. You tell me how you can tell if a behavior is learned or instinctive. If I see different groups of people having different moral beliefs and standards, then I think that would show learned behavior rather than instinct.

    This implies that humans evolved from the 'biologically harmless' australopithecus.
    How do you know australopithecus was biologically harmless? Chimps have wars between neighboring tribes, why not Australopithecus?
    It's also indicates that man didn't have the natural capabilities to kill (with ease) until the stone age when weapons were developed. So it is our cooperation in technological advances which has made us more deadly and increased our violent potential.
    Did you read what you posted? It says we are less deadly, compared to lions.
    It's also confirms that violent incidents increase relative to population. Our society does encourage higher populations and we do see more violence in towns and cities, which are by no means the natural habitats we evolved in for much of our existence, and are the most removed from the usual habitat and way of living of our ancestors.
    Do you think that populations naturally increase? It happens all the time in nature, which makes it natural.
    Lorenze claims we do not have the nature of the predator... he claims we should regret that we aren't evolved from predators becuase if we were, that would somehow prevent war.. Unless i'm mistaken, he does not justify or even attempt to explain this.

    Lorenz was wrong about a number of things, which was noted in the article.


    Quote Originally Posted by sigurd
    What wrong is there in supposing that instincts are equivalents of moral choices?
    Have you evidence for the contrary? Or PROOF!

    I am not the one who is making a claim about instincts, you are. You have the burden of proof.

    Please prove that reason is not involved when humans learn!


    Humans learn to fear zombies. Is that based on reason? I suppose under some definition of the word it may be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    That ones for you sigurd.
    Hey! I now fight a desperate struggle with emotions!
    Fending that one off, accepting that one...
    Are you trying to make me sit idle in here just enjoying my feelings?
    If so: shame on you (wipes a tear out of the corner of my eye)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Harold:
    learning is instinctive perhaps, so maybe there isn't a dividing line between instinctive and learned behaviour. But I agree with you, when I see people being violent for no reason, and I learn that they were hooked on a violent movie or computor game... then I think that violent behaviour has been learnt, instinctively.

    I don't know our ancestor australopithecus was 'biologically harmless' (which i presume referes to a lack of deadly weapons with in it's biological armory)... it what was written in the paper you provided, as I made claer. It looks more like an arangotang than a chim to me... do they have turf wars too?

    As for populations in nature... have you heard the term natural capacity? Nature has ways of regulating capacity, man has ways of over ridding those mechanisms... naturally!

    Yes I typed it, yes the paper you presents say man is less deadly than lions... I agree with it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    That ones for you sigurd.
    Hey! I now fight a desperate struggle with emotions!
    Fending that one off, accepting that one...
    Are you trying to make me sit idle in here just enjoying my feelings?
    If so: shame on you (wipes a tear out of the corner of my eye)
    Enjoy those feelings sig... what else do we really have?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Harold, on what you say to sigurd... The very nature of right and wrong is dabatable in itself.
    To see if something has a natural sense of something, would it be necesary for it to be reared in a normal way?
    I don't know. You tell me how you can tell if a behavior is learned or instinctive. If I see different groups of people having different moral beliefs and standards, then I think that would show learned behavior rather than instinct.

    This implies that humans evolved from the 'biologically harmless' australopithecus.
    How do you know australopithecus was biologically harmless? Chimps have wars between neighboring tribes, why not Australopithecus?
    It's also indicates that man didn't have the natural capabilities to kill (with ease) until the stone age when weapons were developed. So it is our cooperation in technological advances which has made us more deadly and increased our violent potential.
    Did you read what you posted? It says we are less deadly, compared to lions.
    It's also confirms that violent incidents increase relative to population. Our society does encourage higher populations and we do see more violence in towns and cities, which are by no means the natural habitats we evolved in for much of our existence, and are the most removed from the usual habitat and way of living of our ancestors.
    Do you think that populations naturally increase? It happens all the time in nature, which makes it natural.
    Lorenze claims we do not have the nature of the predator... he claims we should regret that we aren't evolved from predators becuase if we were, that would somehow prevent war.. Unless i'm mistaken, he does not justify or even attempt to explain this.

    Lorenz was wrong about a number of things, which was noted in the article.


    Quote Originally Posted by sigurd
    What wrong is there in supposing that instincts are equivalents of moral choices?
    Have you evidence for the contrary? Or PROOF!

    I am not the one who is making a claim about instincts, you are. You have the burden of proof.

    Please prove that reason is not involved when humans learn!


    Humans learn to fear zombies. Is that based on reason? I suppose under some definition of the word it may be.
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurd
    Im not arguing, and you have not shown yourself stupid. Some explanations how I see things then:
    In lower animals instincts work as reflexes, the mind of the animal is not much more than what the Target seeker of a missile is. With humans not much is left of the reflex quality of instincts is left, in most cases we, our mind, presser the trigger! We experience the instincts as emotions...feelings...we are no total slave of our "MORAL VALUES". But we are not masters of our moral we cant change the fact that we feel a certain way in a certain situation. I got this idea yesterday so forgive me for speculating but early in lifes history the nervous system used to interconnect what was going on inside the...eh...whatever... split into the sense collector and the senseprocessor and we are actually the sensecollector. We think that we are doing the thinking but we are mistaken WE ARE THE SELECTORS the preccor is like them engineers laying out a piece of road if we take a step on it the road gets extended...all WE can do is deviate from the rad and the processor builds the new rad we decided to drive on! Im saying that by not accepting the planned road we change the processor a little we teach it our preferences, There Im done thers no road I see to walk on t...a,lli can do is going back and check if there are faults in the road /therebu forcing the processor to.... Ah you get the point...i improvise i think straight right now And i will let you see what was done without editing it before i send it Have Fun on my bhalf!

    EDIT: This developed out of the analogue desription of me as driving a car,having a passenger in the shielded private backseat that told me to take right in next corner...WHY? Well, we drivers most of the time do as we are told, we can stop the car but we cant get out of it, or see into the backseat. Who is this back seat driver? I wondered about that rather long, now I think I sort of found out who we both are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I am not the one who is making a claim about instincts, you are. You have the burden of proof.
    Harold! You sound like ancient greeks! You think Scientific theories are proven by their discoveror...read up... The discoverer states a hypothesis, then he tries to collect evidence...its said...what he does is convincing himself his theory is not logically impossible! Then with lots of fear he tries to disprove it and if he fails he has no other choice than publishing. He lets other scientists do the disproving and if they fail to do so they grudgingly admit defeat and tells the discoverer that his theory is "proven"...it has survived all testing so far.

    Think again Harold!

    Im exhausted! Usually I dont do my "naming the finished ship in public", but here you can see how right out of the blue a solution arrives to me, sent by my "sense processor"...Here I am drunk on intellectual champagne wanting all and everyone to celebrate:

    #The King of Trolls has launched a new hypothesis!#
    (And he wants it disproved...)
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 20th, 2012 at 01:57 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Harold! You sound like ancient greeks! You think Scientific theories are proven by their discoveror...read up... The discoverer states a hypothesis, then he tries to collect evidence...its said...what he does is convincing himself his theory is not logically impossible! Then with lots of fear he tries to disprove it and if he fails he has no other choice than publishing. He lets other scientists do the disproving and if they fail to do so they grudgingly admit defeat and tells the discoverer that his theory is "proven"...it has survived all testing so far.

    Think again Harold!
    That's not what happened, though. You did not state a hypothesis, you made a claim that morals are instinctive. Then, you asked me to prove that they aren't.
    Im exhausted!
    Get some sleep, then try again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Lynx Fox: You're idea echos other opinions posted earlier in the thread... for the puposes of this discussion I attempted to distinguish between agression and violence... I tried to argue that agression is a defence mechanism, and violence can be thought of as a form of attack. This may not be perfectly in line with dictionairy definitions, we don't need to go through that again, i'm just trying to distinguish between necesary 'violence', our inate defense mechanism... and manipulation of that defense mechanism in order to encourage violent acts.

    In fact some of us have a more inate ability to do violence than others, it's in the genes, as mention earlier in this thread.
    My answer is the same....we are animals, and like most animals, carry aggression and tendency to commit violence (as per your definitions for sake of argument) as part of our hard-wired survival strategy. What little distinguishes us from most other animals is SOME humans have learned other coping mechanisms, alternative strategies, or psychological need to acquire permission from our community (aka a Soldiers willingness to kill) to handle situations where we might otherwise resort immediately to violence.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Lynx Fox: You're idea echos other opinions posted earlier in the thread... for the puposes of this discussion I attempted to distinguish between agression and violence... I tried to argue that agression is a defence mechanism, and violence can be thought of as a form of attack. This may not be perfectly in line with dictionairy definitions, we don't need to go through that again, i'm just trying to distinguish between necesary 'violence', our inate defense mechanism... and manipulation of that defense mechanism in order to encourage violent acts.

    In fact some of us have a more inate ability to do violence than others, it's in the genes, as mention earlier in this thread.
    My answer is the same....we are animals, and like most animals, carry aggression and tendency to commit violence (as per your definitions for sake of argument) as part of our hard-wired survival strategy. What little distinguishes us from most other animals is SOME humans have learned other coping mechanisms, alternative strategies, or psychological need to acquire permission from our community (aka a Soldiers willingness to kill) to handle situations where we might otherwise resort immediately to violence.
    We are animals... so why cut our hair, wash ourselves, invent laws? we are the one organisms which is least like the rest of the organisms in the animal kingdom... In that we are sooo much more advanced intellectually.
    What do you mean, coping mechanisms? coping with what? alternative stratergy for what? you make it sound like violence is our one basic instinct which some of us manage to overcome... Perhaps peace is our one basic instinct? much more probable, logically speaking.
    What situation in the past, when people were evolving in the natural environment, do you imagine, in which people would need to react with violence? bearing in mind the earlier posts in this thread distinguishing agression and violence if you can. When would a 'wild' person need to actively violate another?

    you're an ex soldier? a pilot? millitary man?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Harold! You sound like ancient greeks! You think Scientific theories are proven by their discoveror...read up... The discoverer states a hypothesis, then he tries to collect evidence...its said...what he does is convincing himself his theory is not logically impossible! Then with lots of fear he tries to disprove it and if he fails he has no other choice than publishing. He lets other scientists do the disproving and if they fail to do so they grudgingly admit defeat and tells the discoverer that his theory is "proven"...it has survived all testing so far.

    Think again Harold!
    That's not what happened, though. You did not state a hypothesis, you made a claim that morals are instinctive. Then, you asked me to prove that they aren't.
    Im exhausted!
    Get some sleep, then try again.
    Not necessary
    As I was thinking a possibility through for the first time I did not give ANY thought on how to express my thought!
    I sort of was listening to myself telling myself how things are. I will next time I present my hypothesis think hard on how to formulate the theory/hypothesis in the best way and usually that results in some improvements.
    You really should be able to estimate how that will look, if you cant...well thats really none of my business.

    Notice that consciousness seems to be a function of two independent processors one that combines the information from the senses and then sending information packets along a route to the internal processor who in turn, partly on the same route, then is sending reflex orders to the sensors that do the bodily part of the instruction. somewhere on this path/route self consciousness begins and starts modifying messages, later weakening the primitive stimuli/respons pattern, until the directives that once was pure reflex now becomes feelings only effecting weakly the consciousness who now acts independently on the feelings.

    And "moral", where is it in this picture? Well the primitive stimuli/respons MUST be "good", "Morally Good" for the organism because otherwise it will not be favored by natural selection!

    Its a large picture...it will take me a while to process it properly
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 20th, 2012 at 04:28 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Back to violence.
    The history of the human species is a history of reducing violence.
    Primitive tribes were frequently at war with each other, and this can be shown in the few primitive tribes today, in places like the Amazon and in Papua New Guinea. In those tribes, the percentage of the males who die in such conflict ranges from about 5% to 60% of all males. One of the reasons polygamy is common.

    Here is Prof. Steven Pinker's reference again, and I do suggest you watch this if you have not already done so.
    Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence - YouTube

    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    What situation in the past, when people were evolving in the natural environment, do you imagine, in which people would need to react with violence?

    There's a near infinite variety of situations which might lead one to violence....to defend oneself or a loved one, to steal something such as land or people, to avenge harm done to oneself or another, to remove a threat to one's stuff, livelihood or lifestyle, to soften them up to spread your laws and superstitions, are just a few etc.

    Perhaps peace is our one basic instinct?

    There is some evidence for mirror neurons that seem related to our altruism and sympathy for others--that doesn't mean the violence isn't one of our basal instincts--anymore than thinking was can't be sad just because we are happy sometimes happy. (it's the happy and violent that should concern us).

    I was a Soldier for 25 years, 22 of that active duty.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lynx

    If you were a soldier for 25 years, much in war zones, can you be sure that your views of violence are not sampling error?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Lynx

    If you were a soldier for 25 years, much in war zones, can you be sure that your views of violence are not sampling error?
    I'm sure it is. All of us are biased by our life experiences to some extent.

    On the other hand Steven Pinker's excellent work, combined with the volumes of anthropological work on tribal cultures shows human "natural" tendencies quite well beneath the thick layer of varnish modern culture provides. One of the most surprising things about some of these types threads is people seem almost desperate to seperate humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. Beside the fact we are heterotrophs and thus dependent on killing living things to survive--our history dramatically shows our nature as do people when cultural restraints are lowered in war, catastrophic disasters or any seedy bar after midnight.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    That fact that you're been influenced by millitary thinking shows itself in more than just your name. I think you've made up your mind all violence is natural an acceptable?

    I disagree that violence has decreased during evolution, the world overall is more violent than even in recent times, though it's been pretty bad ever since the power struggle began to get organised, regardless of stats that may indicate otherwise. Statistics have been used to mislead for a long time.

    Theres a big difference between two alpha males squaring up to see who gets the females... and modern human beings organising themselves to rape and pilage other nations, one is perfectly acceptable and is a mechanism of healthy evolution... the other is a bunch of idiots being led by a war monger who is no better than hitler or ghengis khan. One is nature in action, the other is violence, a perversion of natural tendencies.

    Can you distinguish between the ability to defend oneself, and the ability to attack people who are weaker? Do you distinguish between the two lynx? One is noble, the other is called bullying and is coowardly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    QFY

    You need to look at the data. You are expressing an opinion, and subjective opinions are often misleading and wrong.

    The data shows clearly that homicide rates are falling, government policies are becoming less violent, and the percentage of the male population dying in war is dropping. In other words, on a per capita basis violence between humans is getting less.

    To Lynx fox.
    You statement about your own prejudice is good. It shows self knowledge, and self knowledge is the first mark of wisdom. It puts you head and shoulders above 95% of humanity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I disagree that violence has decreased during evolution, the world overall is more violent than even in recent times, though it's been pretty bad ever since the power struggle began to get organised, regardless of stats that may indicate otherwise. Statistics have been used to mislead for a long time.
    So, instead of statistics, you think we should go by ... what?
    Theres a big difference between two alpha males squaring up to see who gets the females... and modern human beings organising themselves to rape and pilage other nations,
    Why do you think your mythical "natural" people did not organize and pillage their neighbors? Extant hunting-gathering bands often do just that on a regular basis. So do animals like chimpanzees.
    one is perfectly acceptable and is a mechanism of healthy evolution... the other is a bunch of idiots being led by a war monger who is no better than hitler or ghengis khan. One is nature in action, the other is violence, a perversion of natural tendencies.

    Can you distinguish between the ability to defend oneself, and the ability to attack people who are weaker? Do you distinguish between the two lynx? One is noble, the other is called bullying and is coowardly.
    Who made you the judge of what is noble and what is cowardly? Aren't we trying to have a science discussion? We are simply observing what kind of behavior people and other animals engage in. If the behavior enhances the band or tribe's potential for survival and reproduction, chances are, they will probably do it.

    If a lion takes over a pride from another male, then kills the previous male's offspring, would that be cowardly? They do that, you know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    QFY

    You need to look at the data. You are expressing an opinion, and subjective opinions are often misleading and wrong.

    The data shows clearly that homicide rates are falling, government policies are becoming less violent, and the percentage of the male population dying in war is dropping. In other words, on a per capita basis violence between humans is getting less.

    To Lynx fox.
    You statement about your own prejudice is good. It shows self knowledge, and self knowledge is the first mark of wisdom. It puts you head and shoulders above 95% of humanity.
    I cannot accept that I need to look at the data on this one skeptic... I don't beleive the data exists, it's irrelevent to me if there is less homocide than 50, 100, 200 years ago. Data can be very misleading, especially if it is not all encompassing and especially when presented by somebody with an agenda... what data isn't gathered for an agenda?

    I accept i'm expressing an opinion and like lynx, my opinion has been influenced by my experiences, my upbringing and my logical processes. I think it's an objective iopinion, not subjective.

    The fact is, in my opinion, as long as I have food to eat, a woman to mate with, a home to live in, and preferably a social comunity to be part of...(aka natural requirements), then I will never commit violence on another person... not in this age, not in a past age. The only thing to motivate me into violence would be for my own survival, or mental illness (pathology).

    I'm not saint, but if left alone i'm not violent, and I don't beleive anybody else it.

    I try to be impartial and i'm learning about the scientific method, but in my mind I have a clear definition between agression, self defence and violence.

    No amount of data could teach my more about my nature, than honest reflection and meditation on my instincts, urges, desires IMO.

    I know myself too well to be fooled into hurting somebody for no reason at all. If I ever comit violence on anybody, it will be in self defense. Or it will be becuase I have become mentally unwell.

    Sometimes you just have to admit, the scientific data is not up to scratch, it cannot tell me more than I know about myself, it might add to my understanding but the real understanding comes from self reflection.

    I suppose if it's honest and thorough, then it might tell us about people on the whole, but people on the whole have been affected by all sorts of things that makes that data invalid.

    Statistics on homocide falls way short of subjective data... you'd be better of learning from the feild of pshyco analysis wouldn't you? you yourself have ignored the data provided by dedo earlier in the link as well as a load of other data out there regarding human behaviour. IMO you'd be better off meditating if you want to know your nature, than studying data. But each to their own methods.

    All violence is underlined by fear. Show me the data which disproves that statement...

    To get people to act violently all you need to do is scare them... convince them the enemy will get them and there families, convince them the enemy will destroy them and there kind unless they kill the enemy first.
    P.S are you seriously suggesting that you're not expressing a subjective opinion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    That fact that you're been influenced by millitary thinking shows itself in more than just your name. I think you've made up your mind all violence is natural an acceptable?
    Yes. I think it's not only acceptable but sometimes completely necessary--I am armed.

    I disagree that violence has decreased during evolution, the world overall is more violent than even in recent times, though it's been pretty bad ever since the power struggle began to get organised, regardless of stats that may indicate otherwise. Statistics have been used to mislead for a long time.
    The statistics are clear--violence is dropping rapidly as cultures around the world advance. Those trends are too recent to attribute it to evolutionary change--check back in a few hundred generations.

    . One is noble, the other is called bullying and is coowardly.
    Justified, yes; necessary, yes; but seldom if ever noble--most soldiers who've seen combat would probably agree. We enshroud violence in nice words to motivate us, encourage young people to enlist/sacrifice their lives and as an emotional salve for their widows and orphans. Violence is horrible even when its unavoidable.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    "So, instead of statistics, you think we should go by ... what?"
    meditation, self awareness, observation, life experience... and sure, check the data, see what can be gleaned from it. Either way, no matter what you think, it's a subjective opinion.



    Why do you think your mythical "natural" people did not organize and pillage their neighbors? Extant hunting-gathering bands often do just that on a regular basis. So do animals like chimpanzees.
    I think people wouldn't pillage there neighbours because there neighbours would have nothing that they didn't have. Everything needed would be supplied by nature, such is the profound beauty of evolution.

    Who made you the judge of what is noble and what is cowardly? Aren't we trying to have a science discussion? We are simply observing what kind of behavior people and other animals engage in. If the behavior enhances the band or tribe's potential for survival and reproduction, chances are, they will probably do it.
    Who? I do not know. What? my free will and ability to discriminate made me judge. What do you suggest? I surrender my judgement? what is this bible class? I know we'r simply discussing behaviour, and the causes of behaviour is the key point i'm interested in.

    If a lion takes over a pride from another male, then kills the previous male's offspring, would that be cowardly? They do that, you know.

    Yes, the lion is scared that the young from another male will give his own young less chance for survival. Everybody knows that the lions are cowardly right? that stereotype has existed for ages. The female are braver than the males, but the fight in packs, and have the paternal instincts. probably a bit like female homo sapiens! And as we discussed earlier, the lion is a more deadly animal than the human... it's a predator... we are not. See australopithecus... no k9's.

    I'm happy to have a science discussion, but it won't change my subjective opinion, in fact I think alot of it is sick and i'm worried if I keep reading the so called data.. It might infect me.

    I appologise for my lack of interest in what the science i've seen so far in here can tell me about myself, thats just the way it is on this subjective.

    Speaking of science... I wish dedo would come back and tell us more. I think we need to look at the data from the feild of psychology... not stats on homocide... that tells us zilch.

    When I see somebody post some data for and against the idea of us being savages... then I will beleive that person is trying to be objective and scientific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I think people wouldn't pillage there neighbours because there neighbours would have nothing that they didn't have. Everything needed would be supplied by nature, such is the profound beauty of evolution.
    I think you are falsely belief in the concept of the noble savage, somewhat a well disproved idea of romantic primatism. The ideals of real balance, nature providing everything needed and other related romanticism are mostly myth seldom, if ever, really existing in the natural world, or earlier human cultures.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I wouldn't blame you for being armed lynx. Did you see my question when I asked you if you understand the distinction between defense and violence? Self defense is not violence.

    Violence didn't rise due to natural evolution, it arose due to so called 'progress', it won't die out due to natural evolution either. What statistics do you have for the amount of people who are suffering due to exploitation of their land? Violence is a far bigger, broader phenomena than we could provide stats on. As said befor, for the purpose of this thread, self defence is not violence... but the war in iraq, that is violence. A sghandi said, poverty is the worst form of violence. What do the stats on global poverty say? how can we measure poverty of today in comparison with poverty in the past? are we talking about emotional poverty? financial poverty? how can all forms of violence be recorded in stats? it's ridiculous.

    Defending yourself and your family is noble... maybe not in your culture, but it is in mine. With a gun is not so noble as fighting, as it requires less courage and natural ability.IMO

    "We enshroud violence in nice words to motivate us, encourage young people to enlist/sacrifice their lives and comfort their widows and orphans."

    Motivation through deception is not good, it's wicked. Encourage young people to give their lives, and convince there widows they are heroes... what a fucking sick world we live in. I got nothing else to say for now... It's disturbing to be directly exposed to these views. I usually only see them in the media.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Yes, the lion is scared that the young from another male will give his own young less chance for survival.
    Actually, the reason that a new male kills the young lions is because, while the lionesses are caring for young, they are not ovulating. When the young lions are killed, the lionesses go into season quickly, meaning the new dominant male lion can produce his own offspring.

    I have to say, QFY, I am disappointed. Rejecting the data based approach in favour of subjective opinion is not good science. To get to what is correct, it is important to respect, almost revere, hard data. The data on violence in history is clear cut.

    For example, murder rates have been recorded in Britain for 1,000 years, since murder is rather important to the law makers. The rate has dropped from 100 killings per 100,000 population per year in medieval England to a current level of 1.2. This is a major reduction in violence. The data is clear. There are similar piles of data on torture, maimings, and executions by governments. Such violence has been dropping and continues to drop. Likewise, the percentage of the male population that dies in war is well known, and has been dropping for a long time. Current rates are at the lowest any time in history.

    In spite of any opinion you might have, the rate of human violence is very, very low today, and continues to drop. The only thing that is high, is the rate of reporting violence in the media, which gives the false idea that modern times are very violent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Violence
    By leohopkins in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 11th, 2009, 02:05 PM
  2. Human behaviour it's all in nature
    By jacketate in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: March 28th, 2008, 04:38 AM
  3. Human societies acting against "natural selection"
    By Burger in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: December 18th, 2007, 07:36 PM
  4. OMLL helps uncover ancient human behaviour
    By scpg02 in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 1st, 2007, 01:11 AM
  5. Human behaviour on the eve of extinction.
    By Skraken in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2006, 04:47 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •