Interesting read.

aban57 wrote:Interesting read.

I definitely appreciate his insistence that features of human behaviour can be shown to be consistent with evolutionary explanations, and to that extent "wired in", without immediately jumping to the conclusion that they are fixed and somehow excusable because they are "natural". As in other large-brained animals like chimps, our brains evolved to make our behaviour more flexible and better able to achieve end goals - in the end, any behaviour reliably selected by natural selection will tend to maximise the representation of the individual's genes in later generations, but this selected behaviour can take many forms including self-sacrifice, or not having offspring. Reasoning about our behaviour is at least as natural for humans as jumping in without thinking first.

In developed modern societies, being more violent as an individual tends to lead to prison rather than to any social success, and this way of organising societies is more effective for nearly all their members. Countries which are run by mafia-like gangs don't tend to win on any level against countries where the rule of law holds. Quoting the last four paragraphs of the article aban57 linked:

William Buckner (2018) wrote:There is a concern among some social scientists and science writers that providing adaptive and biological explanations for violence has the effect of encouraging such behaviors. Anthropologist Douglas Fry argues that, “Naturalizing war creates an unfortunate self-fulfilling prophecy: If war is natural, then there is little point in trying to prevent, reduce, or abolish it.”

My argument here is that homicide and warfare are very much ‘natural’ behaviors, often tied to male fitness interests; however, such behaviors are sensitive to socioecological cues, and their prevalence can vary significantly across and within societies. Even among chimpanzees, we see significant variation in rates of lethal violence between different communities, even for those located near each other.

An important strength of the behavioral ecology approach to understanding human behavior is that it goes beyond more narrow ideas rooted in genetic determinism or social constructionism. Violence is not ‘innate’ in the sense of being predictably and rigidly determined by genes alone, nor is it the arbitrary result of socialization or cultural learning. Yet violence is nonetheless rooted in human biology, particularly in sex differences between males and females, and the prevalence of violence can vary substantially across and within cultures due to socioecological factors.

In understanding the cross-cultural trends, as well as accounting for the variation, we can better understand both why males everywhere are, on average, more violent than females, as well as how best to reduce the prevalence of violence within our own societies.

zoon wrote:
I definitely appreciate his insistence that features of human behaviour can be shown to be consistent with evolutionary explanations, and to that extent "wired in", without immediately jumping to the conclusion that they are fixed and somehow excusable because they are "natural".

That's probably because too many people don't make the difference between explaining and excusing. Without this insistence he would be accused of the latter.
It will most likely happen anyway.

Males seem more 'ready' to place themselves in danger, than females of this species. Our generally larger bodies are evidence of that readiness; bigger hands for throwing bigger rocks. Males are stronger, faster and die sooner.
There are also more males born in and after times of war, curious fact.

aban57 wrote:

zoon wrote:
I definitely appreciate his insistence that features of human behaviour can be shown to be consistent with evolutionary explanations, and to that extent "wired in", without immediately jumping to the conclusion that they are fixed and somehow excusable because they are "natural".

That's probably because too many people don't make the difference between explaining and excusing. Without this insistence he would be accused of the latter.
It will most likely happen anyway.

Morality, whether someone should be excused or not, still tends to be thought of as something outside evolution, rather than as an evolved feature of human behaviour? It seems to me clear that morality, being an aspect of every functioning human group that has been studied, is something that, like violence, evolved by natural selection, but I still find it tricky to integrate this with ordinary social life.

Perhaps, in order to explain without excusing, it's necessary to insist that morality, like every other aspect of our bodies and behaviour, is the result of evolution by natural selection? Then one can argue that while it may indeed be natural, for example, for a young man to injure another who has disrespected him, it is equally natural for the rest of society not to excuse that behaviour, but instead to operate as a group to identify the offender and make sure that he does not profit in any way from being a disruptive nuisance? The human groups which succeeded in keeping individual violence under control were also the groups which cooperated more effectively. The cooperating individuals, with the early forms of morality, were the ones who succeeded in leaving more of their own genes in later populations. Violence is natural, and so is the morality which does not excuse that violence, but instead punishes the perpetrator. Human behaviour is, naturally, as a result of evolution by natural selection, extremely flexible and complex - as the saying goes: "evolution is cleverer than you are".

(Sometimes, for example in cases of epilepsy, it's appropriate to excuse someone's behaviour on the grounds that "their brain made them do it", but of course that is an instance of a malfunctioning brain, and the downside for the individual of being excused in such cases is that they are no longer trusted as fully capable; for example, they may not be allowed to drive a car. By contrast, a young man who has been punished for injuring another may well have the option afterwards of mending his ways and becoming fully accepted as a member of society.)

zoon wrote:Then one can argue that while it may indeed be natural, for example, for a young man to injure another who has disrespected him, it is equally natural for the rest of society not to excuse that behaviour, but instead to operate as a group to identify the offender and make sure that he does not profit in any way from being a disruptive nuisance?

Maybe it's time to answer a humble question about why men are more disrespectful than women. You could have a whole thread about how it's high time that women learned to be as disrespectful as men are.

Women are not angels. The reason that they don't often use physical force to get what they want is obvious, but we now live in an age where physical force is no longer the earmark of power, especially in The West.

This is all new though, as even relatively recently many men were still using violence to put their wives 'in place'. Indeed, it still happens, but much less so now (so it seems). It's still a big problem in The East though, I hear.

The bottom line is that I suspect men are becoming much less violent by the decade in their approach to 'life'. Conversely, with their new-found power, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that women are becoming more violent. Just a hunch, because violence does not necessarily have to come from one's own hands. Remember, Thatcher saved The Falklands.

Power corrupts even angels.

The end-result of 'equal power' would be interesting to witness, though I suspect it won't improve the bullshit politics we've endured throughout history. After all, women have material desires too.

Sorry, but "why are women less violent than men?"

Keep It Real wrote:Sorry, but "why are women less violent than men?"

Is that a question to me?

I've just explained why women have been less violent than men throughout history and why, now, you'll be seeing women becoming more violent throughout the future, even indirectly. Women are no less cunts than men, let's get that straight.

No it was directed at the thread title...don't send anything to that old address this year man, I've moved.

Keep It Real wrote:No it was directed at the thread title...don't send anything to that old address this year man, I've moved.

I'm sending fuck-all to you, Brutus.

jamest wrote:Women are not angels.

As if anyone said that.

jamest wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:No it was directed at the thread title...don't send anything to that old address this year man, I've moved.

I'm sending fuck-all to you, Brutus.

Oh dear, had to google "Brutus" and am still none the wiser RE the reference. Your prezzie to me last year sure got around tho, my turn? PM boss?

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

jamest wrote:Women are not angels.

As if anyone said that.

You're correct, they did not. Though if one blindly studies the data, it is surely a reasonable conclusion to make.

Fortunately, we're no longer blind. We now see that women are as (or more) materialistic than men and will, given power, do as much as men to secure their materialistic desires.

In other words, they are cunts on an equal scale to man. Only social history to this recent point has deprived us of this realisation.

Keep It Real wrote:

jamest wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:No it was directed at the thread title...don't send anything to that old address this year man, I've moved.

I'm sending fuck-all to you, Brutus.

Oh dear, had to google "Brutus" and am still none the wiser RE the reference. Your prezzie to me last year sure got around tho, my turn? PM boss?

You had to google 'Brutus'? Fuck me with a frozen...

I did a lot for you, not least last Xmas, and you eventually knifed me regardless. I can put up with retardedness of sorts, since my own step-daughter is autistic, but she has yet to shove a knife in my back.

Oh man, I really won't spell out and rehash all that old beef now....like, why can't we all get along!? You refused to accept a gift from me last year, hopefully, this year you will, is all I'm saying. Made my Xmas in many ways your prezzie did last year...

Keep It Real wrote:Oh man, I really won't spell out and rehash all that old beef now....like, why can't we all get along!? You refused to accept a gift from me last year, hopefully, this year you will, is all I'm saying. Made my Xmas in many ways your prezzie did last year...

I don't hate you, dude. You're the first person in two decades whom I offered to meet from online, and you turned me down. This was after helping you out financially. Indeed, you accused me of being a controlling cunt, or suchlike. You don't trust me, obviously. I accept your judgement, and now we're done.

I of course wish you all the best, etc., but I'm moving on. You missed a big fish though, I hope you realise this.

Ironclad wrote:Males seem more 'ready' to place themselves in danger, than females of this species. Our generally larger bodies are evidence of that readiness; bigger hands for throwing bigger rocks. Males are stronger, faster and die sooner.
There are also more males born in and after times of war, curious fact.

Interesting. I wonder if that makes war more prevalent in 20 year cycles or close to that

BWE wrote:

Ironclad wrote:Males seem more 'ready' to place themselves in danger, than females of this species. Our generally larger bodies are evidence of that readiness; bigger hands for throwing bigger rocks. Males are stronger, faster and die sooner.
There are also more males born in and after times of war, curious fact.

Interesting. I wonder if that makes war more prevalent in 20 year cycles or close to that

What a stupid retort. The people in power determine when wars occur, nothing more. Have you not heard of the Hundred Years War?

jamest wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Oh man, I really won't spell out and rehash all that old beef now....like, why can't we all get along!? You refused to accept a gift from me last year, hopefully, this year you will, is all I'm saying. Made my Xmas in many ways your prezzie did last year...

I don't hate you, dude. You're the first person in two decades whom I offered to meet from online, and you turned me down. This was after helping you out financially. Indeed, you accused me of being a controlling cunt, or suchlike. You don't trust me, obviously. I accept your judgement, and now we're done.

I of course wish you all the best, etc., but I'm moving on. You missed a big fish though, I hope you realise this.

Basically, this:

Fallible wrote: (KIR is) Far too intelligent to entertain the ignorant ramblings of some internet weirdo

Listen jamest - YOU HAVE NOTHING FOR ME. I don't care how heavy a fish you think you are - I ain't fishing. Perhaps you should be banned...I have circled that territory too no doubt.