Can we learn to unlearn aggression?

[houlahound]

I have always been into full contact aggressive sports...too old now tho. I use dogs to hunt prey and have a full bite trained on human targets dog I hire out for property and human protection. I enjoy the training and the work, so does the dog.

Is aggression just part of what we are, can we ever evolve past it?

I heard of societies that have no vocabulary for war and have no evidence of being in a war or fighting. They were utilised in WWII I think and were taught aggression to good effect - after the war they went back to zero aggression.

 

[Drakkith]

I heard of societies that have no vocabulary for war and have no evidence of being in a war or fighting. They were utilised in WWII I think and were taught aggression to good effect - after the war they went back to zero aggression.

Do you have a source for this?

 

[houlahound]

Will search it, they were remote subsistence villagers.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Women can be quite something, too. For example, mine went after me with a broom earlier this evening, no joking.

 

[houlahound]

I think this be the non violent society, Semai people;

https://cas.uab.edu/peacefulsocieties/societies/semai/

 

[houlahound]

Women can be quite something, too. For example, mine went after me with a broom earlier this evening, no joking.

Well female dogs generally fight to kill, male dogs rarely do or want to.

 

[Evo]

Well female dogs generally fight to kill, male dogs rarely do or want to.

Please post the source for this.

 

[houlahound]

I train working dogs, it is experience. Don't know any formal studies, obviously would be grossly unethical to do controlled test I hope that's obvious.

Ask anyone who is experienced with high powered dogs.

 

[houlahound]

Ok people have studied it;

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...aggression-between-dogs-in-the-same-household

Females fight more often, more aggressive and cause the more serious injuries.

 

[strangerep]

Women can be quite something, too. For example, mine went after me with a broom earlier this evening, no joking.

Hmm, why am I not surprised?

 

[houlahound]

WOOT - just got a board trophy for 75 likes...and the 75'th like was on a post proving how dangerous and aggressive females are.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Agression in men, especially young men, is probably the root of all humanities problems.

I have no source for that. It is an editorial comment.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Aggression is a behavior, a response to an internal or external stimulus. It is common throughout the animal kingdom and likely to remain a natural survival response to perceived threats. I don't believe that humans could totally evolve past resorting to aggressive behaviors. Children, people with disability, or people going through a crisis or threatening situation will likely always respond to some situations aggressively. Children often use this as a coping mechanism in their first few years, they don't have the knowledge or experience to respond any differently. It is known to be a part of normal growth and development, as long as they can learn other coping skills to replace the aggressive episodes. We know that many people do begin behaving more aggressively when their cognitive function declines late in life.

Many people probably go very long periods without episodes of aggressive behavior towards others. While many may occasionally become aggressive. However, choosing to consistently participate in situations that evoke aggression like sports isn't entirely the same thing, there is obviously a feedback cycle that benefits everyone in that situation, eventually (it is more controlled). Having fun being aggressive is more a choice than a person responding to a potentially threatening situation. Humans still need those cognitive detours in order to survive. A huge problem humans face is in judging threats or making assumptions that lead to a preventable act of aggression. The flip side of that is not responding to a threat could get you killed. From a survival standpoint, aggression or going on the offense first makes sense.

Men and women shouldn't be placed upon the same scale against each another. That's unfair to use war as an example. Both genders deal with difference sets of physiological factors and conditioning that affects the rates and types of aggressive behavior.

A person that enjoys hurting animals or people are called sadists. They deviate from the norm in all societies.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Agression in men, especially young men, is probably the root of all humanities problems.

That is an unfair assessment. Up until this last century or so, nearly all human progress and advancements in knowledge had been made by males. We have no models of the what the outcome would be if that had been contributed solely by females, or equally by both. Possibly, the damage done by males is compensated for with those contributions. Of course, there would be no humans at all without females sticking by their young, females have been essential for survival more so than progress. Both have value.

We could also say: Drive in men, especially young men, has probably been the root of all humanities progress.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Various definitions:

• angry or violent behavior or feelings
• : hostile action against another country, government, etc.
  1. 
     : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
  2. 2: the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
  3. 3: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration
     http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression1.
     the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state,particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack,invasion, or the like:
     The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression.
     2.
     any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment:
     an aggression upon one's rights.
     3.
     the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.
     4.
     Psychiatry. overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting fromcontinued frustration and directed outward or against oneself.
     http://www.dictionary.com/browse/aggression
     

 

[houlahound]

the most extreme act of aggression is all out nuclear war - arguably nuclear war eliminated itself from happening, at least in the cold war era, only due to US/USSR knowing they were both equally defenceless against each other and that both would lose.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Firstly it seems like the definition of aggressiveness is too broad to be useful, houlahound perhaps you could clarify what you're asking. Contact sports don't require aggressive behaviour whether they be verbal insults or violence (outside of the rules of the game). Shock horror but it's actually perfectly easy to have a friendly game of rugby, boxing, karate etc.

Secondly there is an ongoing argument over whether or not humanity is, as a whole, becoming more peaceful. The metrics in those discussions being rates of violent crimes at the individual level and armed conflict at a state level. See The Better Angels of our Nature for more. So it's possible that aggression is declining worldwide in the most simple sense.

Last point but anecdotally I've definitely noted a decreased acceptance to aggression over time. You can see this a lot with older TV and film which often include casual aggression and violence (particularly against women, children and minorities) that would not be acceptable today. Less anecdotally since the 1800s violence towards women by husbands has been increasingly legislated against (it wasn't until http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/keydates/ that domestic violence could be a legitimate reason for divorce).

 

[mheslep]

Agression in men, especially young men, is probably the root of all humanities problems.

I have no source for that. It is an editorial comment.

Yes that's one theory, though coupled risk taking and agression was probably necessary to get the species out of the caves and across a couple of ice ages and oceans. The alternative is to become the Eloi, and some other species later catalogs your fossils. These days in the West, if there must be a root, I'm going with the PajamaBoy male archetype as being the root of humanities problems.

 

[Bystander]

as a whole, becoming more peaceful.

Quincy Wright, CoWPat UoC, Leviathan, ... , it's dubious.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes that's one theory, though coupled risk taking and agression was probably necessary to get the species out of the caves and across a couple of ice ages and oceans. The alternative is to become the Eloi, and some other species later catalogs your fossils. These days in the West, if there must be a root, I'm going with the PajamaBoy male archetype as being the root of humanities problems.

OK, then. Thank you, Alex and the Droogs, for bringing us civilization!

 

[houlahound]

Yes that's one theory, though coupled risk taking and agression was probably necessary to get the species out of the caves and across a couple of ice ages and oceans.

might be an offset to this; the aggressive risk takers although adventurous pioneers no doubt are more likely to be taken out of the gene pool by the very fact they are exposed to the highest risk.

the lesser being, either the weak and or sickly are left back in the cave to breed.

this would not be that different in battle where the most athletic and most intelligent are tasked with the most risky, sophisticated and complex missions in the direct line of fire, in fact suicide missions.

the lesser guy is way behind his own lines driving a fork-lift relatively out of harms way...gifted with a higher survival probability in the conflict.

 

[Drakkith]

might be an offset to this; the aggressive risk takers although adventurous pioneers no doubt are more likely to be taken out of the gene pool by the very fact they are exposed to the highest risk.

the lesser being, either the weak and or sickly are left back in the cave to breed.

That's not really how evolution works. The weak and sickly already have a lower chance to pass on their genes because of the fact that they are weak and sickly. Then there's the fact that aggression is almost certainly correlated with a great number of other factors, including those which relate to sexual selection. I'm nearly certain I've read that it's possible that aggression, as long as it isn't too great, is positively selected for thanks to sexual selection and other social issues. Unfortunately I don't have a reference for that...

this would not be that different in battle where the most athletic and most intelligent are tasked with the most risky, sophisticated and complex missions in the direct line of fire, in fact suicide missions.

Warfare is not like this. Soldiers are, on the whole, not separated based on athleticism and intelligence.

the lesser guy is way behind the lines driving a fork-lift relatively out of harms way...gifted with a higher survival probability in the conflict.

This is not how the military works.

 

[houlahound]

not sure how you can realistically dispute the fact that the most intelligent and athletic guys do not get the riskiest and most complex missions - that contradicts the composition and recruitment of all elite units the world over.

why on Earth do you think the military is so big on testing, specialised testing and more testing?

 

[zoobyshoe]

this would not be that different in battle where the most athletic and most intelligent are tasked with the most risky, sophisticated and complex missions in the direct line of fire, in fact suicide missions.

Wars aren't won by special forces. They're won by accident, superior numbers, or, when human qualities actually play a part in a victory, by superior strategy (in which I would include superior weaponry). A cave man doesn't kill a bear by being more aggressive than the bear. He kills it by being smart enough to make a spear. Eskimos don't eat by agression. They cultivate the extreme patience to wait by a small hole in the ice for hours until a seal comes up for air. Civilization arose because we learned to put our aggression aside and think things out.

 

[houlahound]

good points.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Quincy Wright, CoWPat UoC, Leviathan, ... , it's dubious.

I'm afraid I don't get your reference.

 

[Bystander]

So it's possible that aggression is declining worldwide in the most simple sense.

I was addressing your thesis that frequency/prevalence of aggression is in decline. The discussion seems to have gone elsewhere since, so ...

 

[mheslep]

Wars aren't won by special forces. They're won by accident, superior numbers, or, when human qualities actually play a part in a victory, by superior strategy (in which I would include superior weaponry). A cave man doesn't kill a bear by being more aggressive than the bear. He kills it by being smart enough to make a spear. Eskimos don't eat by aggression. They cultivate the extreme patience to wait by a small hole in the ice for hours until a seal comes up for air. Civilization arose because we learned to put our aggression aside and think things out.

The guy who kills the bear instead of hanging in the cave, or moves the tribe to hopefully better ground, is the higher *risk* taker than his peers, and perhaps uses some aggression to coerce peers to help out. He then gets his risk taking genes into the next generation by further aggression against his peers competing for mates, as does in the alpha in whatever species. Granted that aggression has to have an off switch, either internal or some kind or via some point of rebellion in the members of the pack, or the pack/tribe doesn't last long.

 

[houlahound]

Or the less aggressive smart guy invents traps, weapons and trains semi domesticated wolves to hunt with and kills 10 bears with minimal risk and the ladies think he is more breed worthy because of it.

 

[Psinter]

Is aggression just part of what we are, can we ever evolve past it?

These things have already been deeply studied. The subject is very, very broad. The answer is that there is no indication of it happening any time soon although some societies have already implemented systems that have been successful reducing it (like Japan, the US is not one of them according to the journal I read). And still, despite reductions in specific societies, there are no signs of it ending.

I can give you links to scientific journals and books where information about it can be found (including that which I mentioned above), but the question is: can you access them? They are all behind a pay wall. Which defeats the purpose for those who cannot access them.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The guy who kills the bear instead of hanging in the cave, or moves the tribe to hopefully better ground, is the higher *risk* taker than his peers, and perhaps uses some aggression to coerce peers to help out. He then gets his risk taking genes into the next generation by further aggression against his peers competing for mates, as does in the alpha in whatever species. Granted that aggression has to have an off switch, either internal or some kind or via some point of rebellion in the members of the pack, or the pack/tribe doesn't last long.

Agression and risk taking aren't the same thing.

 

[Drakkith]

Or the less aggressive smart guy invents traps, weapons and trains semi domesticated wolves to hunt with and kills 10 bears with minimal risk and the ladies think he is more breed worthy because of it.

Perhaps the aggressive smart guys does these things instead. I don't think intelligence and aggression are directly related to each other.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Perhaps the aggressive smart guys does these things instead. I don't think intelligence and aggression are directly related to each other.

When I was in college there was a saying that I heard many times: "The more angry someone becomes, the less sense they make."

In my experience it has always proven true. I don't think it would be too hard to design a study to test it, either.

 

[Drakkith]

When I was in college there was a saying that I heard many times: "The more angry someone becomes, the less sense they make."

In my experience it has always proven true. I don't think it would be too hard to design a study to test it, either.

That's anger, not aggression.

 

[houlahound]

I don't think intelligence and aggression are directly related to each other.

perhaps not if you are talking strictly about physical aggression.

I consider it self evident that anyone pushing at the frontiers of knowledge, in particular physics, is an extreme outlier in terms of intellectual aggression starting from Giordano Bruno, Galileo...and also Darwin.

given the times these guys lived in they had nerves of steel and some serious aggressive minds and courageous hearts.