A meeting of the minds, always a wonderful thing....

Birds of a feather and all that

If I could read your mind now what a tale it could really tell

I'm jumping the gun a little because I'm responding before reading the entire thread. So I may be rehashing something that's already been considered (sorry).




I think the first statement from the OP (quoted above) could stand to be broadened. William James version of Functionalism in which he considers 3 components to human behavior – instincts, emotions, and thought is broader. James’ theory, briefly put, was that environment affected behavior such that behavior served as survival functions tends to indicate that our interaction with our environment must also be considered.

However, even that does not include conditioning (Pavlov) or some form of imprinting (Lorenz) but then again we’re not sure if humans undergo imprinting simply because some studies suggest that facial expressions are understood by babies and that the greatest majority of facial expressions mean the same between countries and cultures.

Without even getting to the hypothesis in the OP topic, you can see how complicated something that sounds so simple can be. If the discussion is broad enough it would be likely that more than just psychological and physiological aspects would be considered.

The stated hypothesis:


First of all, the term VIOLENCE has not been defined. Each culture has constructed their own concepts of what violence is. Even in America a husband was allowed to rape his wife and it was not considered a violent offence. Spanking a child in one culture might be considered violence while in another filing the teeth of children into a mini-dagger appearance is not considered violence (talk about pain!!!).

Now if defending one’s resources, security, or family, requires forceful behavior is that considered violence?

Would we consider driving while intoxicated a form of premeditated violence since it’s widely known that such behavior puts yourself and others at risk of physical harm or death?

What is violence?





If we consider humans from the perspective of the animal kingdom, we are really quite ill-equipped for dealing with our environment UNLESS we have some kind of social structure. It’s our diversity and our ability to think abstractly and conceptually that is our strength.

It may well be that our ability to think, as we do, provided us with the means to populate the Earth. Consider it from a Darwinian perspective – we evolved as a social creature because living within a social group was our greatest protection from the environment. If we got along with others and our social unit grew, we had a better chance of passing our genes. We continue to reinforce that idea through the innovativeness that occurs as a natural off-set of living in ‘civilized’ social units. Through the diversity that exists in having lived in different environments and having developed various methods (tools, technology, and medicine) we have been able to continue to advance as species.

In that case, perhaps the programming might be better aligned with Darwinism. If that’s the case, then we are AND we are not naturally violent. But again, as I questioned before, the answer depends on how you define violence.

Very good food for thought....Mmmm, delicious indeed! =]
Thanks!

Hello Redykeulous,
Thank you for your response. One of the definitions I found is as follows:


ANGER- is defined as a strong feeling or emotion of annoyance, displeasure or hostility.

FRUSTRATION- a deep chronic sense or state of insecurity and dissatisfaction arising from unresolved problems or unfulfilled needs

Aggression is an action with the intent to create harm; however, violence refers to an action with extreme harm as the main goal of the action (Anderson and Bushman).

Anger and frustration are an emotional state, violence is a physical outcome.

I am still trying to piece this all together so the information that was posted might not be in order or complete as of yet.

The response was:



The Little Albert experiments (Watson and Raynor)indicate that fear is learned and that it can be generalized meaning that once a fear has developed, the same mental state can occur when the fear is transferred due to some similiarity between the feared thing and something that is recognized as familiar. Learning to be afraid of a WHITE rat can become a fear of a person in a WHITE lab coat.

But our first responce to fear is to evaluate the situation (usually instinctually)and whatever reasoning occurs stimulates either the fight or flight behavior.

Fighting in such a case may not be a proclivity as much as it is instict to protect life or lives.

Using very young children to make some kind of determination about instinctual (natural) behavior might seem like a good idea BUT that's still problematic if we consider, among other things, Self and Other awareness.

What comes to mind is how aware is a child of their limitations? If a child does something wrong, even when not aware of what was wrong, the body language and tone of an adult saying "COME HERE, RIGHT NOW" tends to make the child run in the other direction? Do they run because they instinctively know that they do not have power and control over the situation (a spanking perhaps)?

I met a 21 month old beautiful little boy today in a waiting room (car repair place). That child loved everybody he saw. I said to the mother "That's a child who has met a stranger."

Do you suppose that personality might play a part in that, because the mother commented on how different her two children behaved in that regard. Her first child did not trust anyone and refused to smile at anyone until he had known that person for a long time.

It may be that the assessment a situation during the fight or flight scenario includes a quick account of one's power and ability/capability to control the situation.

Throughout history warriors/soldiers have been put to death for running from a battle - why do so few actually run from a such a great risk in which they have so little power and control?

What I'm getting to is do we have the power of will to override or misconstrue what would otherwise be considered 'natural' or instinctual behavior. The answer is a resounding YES, and that's yet another problem with determining if premeditated will to harm is natural or not.

good luck proving that humans are not violent by nature. as you've said, violent crime in america has been in constant decline just the past few decades. as civilization has matured it's been a tough roe to hoe getting beyond our violent tendencies. that violent crime continues to drop only through strict enforcment as evidenced by our record high prison population will attest to a naturally violen species where violence is curbed only by enforcement and punishment.

Certainly there are humans willing to help out. But there isn't enough, or else we'd all be helping each other instead of killing, raping, murdering, starving, each other.

Of course, personally, I do feel the sheer amount of people on this planet has taken away the "sacredness" of human life and leaves the majority apathetic to helping others.

The statistics say violent crime has gone down, but as was mentioned earlier, that's because our prison population has gone up. Also, our weapons of destruction have gotten better, and that keeps everyone in fear. So, violence may be suppressed under fear, rather then free to act out. Good or bad.

Fear doesn't suggest that humans are naturally violent does it?

Violence is an act, fear is an emotion.....even if fear leads to violence it doesn't have to. We are naturally fearful (human emotion)I don't believe by saying that that means we are naturally violent. (not that you suggested that)

I do believe fear can be a tool to help prevent violence though.

like fear, anger is also an emotion which quite often leads to violence. indeed, humans may experience anger more often and with greater intensity than many other speacies known to be naturally violent. whather a shark, for instance, ever attacks out of anger i wouldn't know but my guess would be that hunger drives it's violence more than anything. man obviously kills often simply to eat as does the shark. a stockyard to raise cattle to be butchered is not a crime but to kill a human or even a pet out of anger is as society has matured has become a crime. it seems quite obvious to me that anger, greed, envy, jealousy and such are emotions that occur naturally in humans moreson than other species and it's tough to argue that these emotions do not often lead to violent tendencies. couple that emotional violence with violence caused by simple survival instinct and i'd say humans not only are naturally violent but perhaps the most violent minded creatures on the planet.

sorry but i think you got wrong side for this debate. but if you and your two cronies can pull this one off you'd be a hit in politics. lol. good luck.

I don't know that human nature is be violent but there is a certain desire to be dominant and be in control. I have my thing of going after men who are stronger and disciplined in martial arts or military and get off and getting them to take prat fall for me so I can hold them down. I know that sounds crazy. I am not going to go beat up weaker people but it is fun to get the big bad to take a prat fall for you and let you feel dominant for a moment or two.

It doesn't sound crazy, I believe we all have our own personal satisfying adventures we conjure up in our minds. I train in martial arts and with the right person that is definitely something I would go along with.. I think it's fun to trade (give away) the power, share the power and own the power. ...but we are getting off subject now...ha!

I agree emphatically that humans are prone to violence, and our civilization is what curbs our violent tendencies.

Its also evident that in the current state of affairs, enforcement and punishment are necessary to lower that level of violence.

I do think that we can have a non-violent civilization without as much "enforcement and punishment" as we know it. There may always be a few sociopaths and wing-nuts, but most people are sensitive to censure, peer pressure, and shame. There are subcultures that find violence socially acceptable, a violence is higher in those subcultures. If all subcultures valued non-violence, I think our natural predisposition to violence would be somewhat curbed by the need for social acceptance.

we humans are so predisposed to violence that we've paid to see it for centuries and call it enjoyment. from the coluseum in rome where gladiators fought to the death to the coluseum in oakland where raider fans pay what some would call a week's wages to see a sport so violent that it can cost the price of good used car to equip just one of the participants just so the violence won't hurt too much. and i can recall a time when muhamad ali was the most recognized man on the planet.

The distinction is natural tendency, vs learned tendency. Can we really say that the kid that bites, or hits has not learned that behavior?

Its a response to an emotion, but is that response learned . . . that is the real question.

So much of what we are is learned, that I tend to believe we are not naturally violent, but we learn very quickly how effective violence can be. We will use what is effective so long as we do not learn a better method with less negative outcomes. (something I want to believe I have learned)

Studies have shown that children who get no stimulus do not do well, they tend to shut down, not lash out. children who see violence tend to be violent.

My father was particularly violent, and it has been a big part of my life to move away from the violence and toward pacifism, it has not been easy, but I feel it is both a combination of a genetic predisposition toward anger, and a learned set of violent strategies to use intimidation to gain power and control over others. I was very shy, and meek for most of my childhood, It took ALOT to get me to draw a line, I would allow almost anyone to abuse me indefinitely. As I grew I learned that my size and strength allowed me to take control over the situation, in 6th grade I was 6'1 175 lbs, but still other kids would bully me becuase of my temperament being so meek. I asked my mom to enroll me in Karate, where I LEARNED to fight. Within a year I became an ANTI-Bully, and actively sough out bullies to confront.

Not sure what to make of this other than I believe my experience draws a conclusion for me, my emotions and my behaviors changed over time. I learned to confront my fears, and confront my antagonists. I became violent to take back control over my interactions with others who sought status at my expense.

Violence to me is a tool used by people to achieve some goal, it is a rare individual (and I believe with mental disorders) who uses violence for no goal or purpose and since goals and purpose are things we engineer as we experience life, I do not conciser the goals themselves to be natural. Having goals and desires is natural, the actual goals and desires themselves are engineered.

Eddie, I would love to know how the debate went?!

I believe: something in the make - up in the genes of an individual may trigger an inherent violent behavior.


. Oppose to the violence generated for survival: that .."..survival of the fittest"....