UKC

Is it nature or nurture ? I was thinking that if the world just stopped 'feeding' on video war games and war movies, then people and nations might get on better together; but scientific american says it's the supermarkets !

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-roots-of-human-aggression/

'The rewarding aspect of aggression, including feelings of superiority and dominance, underlies several forms of this behavior, but in particular, the hedonistic component of bullying, as well as psychopathic and brutal criminal violence. In modern society, where our food needs are supplied by supermarkets, the missing sense of reward that comes from a successful kill can be satisfied through recreational activities such as hunting and fishing.'

NB. any reference to a named war past or present should be considered off-topic, as should any individual nation focus

Many other species display aggressive behaviour - so I’d say ‘nature’ - in the sense that it’s a normal part of behaviour, it may of course be learned to a certain extent.

Bees can be aggressive.  I've seen them playing a PS Hive.

Agreed. It's certainly natural to have some aggression - a healthy level of aggression is useful for getting up a climb. In the context of society and what holds it together, the level of aggression may be damaging if it interferes with human relations - we might say that aggression is either constructive or destructive.

It's certainly stimulating to imagine how developed levels of aggression - normal and useful to a neanderthal existence - are antagonistic to modern sedentary life (parallel to bodily needs for exercise). Have we attempted to force human nature too far - in expectation of lifestyle as we know it ? In our expectation of co-existing peacefully ?

or (edit) do we just need to get rid of the supermarkets

I think it's always handy to remember that we are basically shaved monkeys, however much we try to distance ourselves from them. 

Didn't we used to have a regular poster called badly shaved monkey? 

Go back even further and we evolved from reptiles. Dinosaurs were always tearing chunks off each other. Plus ca change ....

Depending how you measure evolution, we've spent 0.5 to 1.5 million years evolving from apes to reach the present day. Every winter or season is about survival, even after farming evolved a couple of thousand years ago it literally was still survival of the fittest, the best land, crops, fishing, water supply... those physically weaker, non team players etc died. Only in the last 2 generations has there been sufficient food for 'most', only the rich were obese in the west prior to ww2. Many still are just surviving in some parts of the world. 

I'd start this conversation again in 50,000+ years. You are only able to avoid aggression because others have secured your lifestyle previously. 

I'm never convinced by shaved monkey arguments. Bonobos and chimps are very closely related but behave very differently. We are a different species from any other ape and behave very differently from the rest of them.

You probably need to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

Neither.  Or both.  It's complicated.

This is almost always the answer when someone asks that question about anything, but especially about human behaviour.

The human brain is built from biological components we have in common with everything from velociraptors to to dolphins. We are part Lizard, part Mammal, but crucially we are both sentient and lucid. Of course environmental factors can divert us from being fully developed as thinking beings; atrocities prove this, but even the most wretched has the potential to grow into something extraordinary and positive. This is what life's all about!

I think this hunt and kill remark is a bit unhelpful; it's a bit of an odd line in an otherwise decent summary article. there's no doubt that hunting and killing must contain an element of aggression, in a wider sense of aggression, but it's far from central to our human, or animal, nature.

the article is mostly about intraspecies aggression (i.e. humans to each other), this is obviously related in some way to the interspecies aggression we needed to hunt, and to defend yourself from being hunted, but it's just not right to say we are aggressive because we hunt, not to say we must hunt to release our aggresion.

Konrad Lorenz's "on aggression" looks into many examples of aggression in all sorts of animal species including fish, birds and herbivores of all kinds. e.g. geese; have you ever had a run-in with a goose? It's not light read, and the conclusions are a bit iffy, but its interesting in gives a whole host of examples of the role and purpose of aggression in the animal kingdom. suffice to say that aggression in innate across all of nature, us included.

a lot of people hunt, and do so because they enjoy it, but you won't suffer any emotional, mental or neurophysiological damage from not doing it.

Lonerz gives a interesting observation that the final act of killing is the first thing that is unlearned in domesticated cats. many domestic cats still hunt, kill and eat prey, but as they become more domesticated they'll still go through the instinctive actions of hunting but not actually carry out the kill. this is explained as the actions the animal does the most remain longer in their instinct; a cat will stalk more often than pounce, more often than actually catch and execute in hunting. this is just a long-winded way of me saying that the act of killing another animal is not a fundamental trait that we can't live without.

I don't want to get into pro/anti hunting debate, but this rather throwaway line is just the kind of thing people like to pick up on in justifying their enjoyment of killing other animals and distracts from the real debate on "intraspecies aggression" and its role our world. 

'Bill Gates considers the book one of the most important books he has ever read,[9] and on the BBC radio program Desert Island Discs he selected the book as the one he would take with him to a deserted island.[10] He has written that "Steven Pinker shows us ways we can make those positive trajectories a little more likely. That's a contribution, not just to historical scholarship, but to the world."[9] After Gates recommended the book as a graduate present in May 2017, the book re-entered the bestseller list [11]'

Well well !

Why the "Well well!"

Gates invests in hi-tech vegan food products, a vegan/vegetarian dietary regime is said by some to reduce aggression. The following article is not black and white in it's discussion:

Title: Does Being Vegan Make a Person Less Aggressive?

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/03/north-korea-veganism/520...

...is there any solid evidence veganism makes a person less aggressive? If anything, a quick search for veganism and aggression conflates the two in the opposite direction. As in, My aggressive vegan neighbors won’t stop telling me that I’m worse than Satan. Or, My teen turned vegan and said she can’t love me anymore and is holding her breath until I renounce a lifetime of slaughter, and I’m unwilling to do that, please help.

I don't see how the obtaining of food by any species can be described as aggression in the sense you seem to be talking about, other than in the etymological: "to step towards, initiate".

We need to eat - that's nature. Dominating an environment is a means to that. Attacking first is useful. Etc etc etc. Great, I've got plenty of grub. 

That bloke down the pub you've never met before who wants/needs to kick your teeth in is probably echoing those basic drives.

So, nature essentially, though as ever nurture can modify its degree in individuals.

(Right, I'll get back to shouting at the kids to wash up and cook my tea!) 

Oh dear, you need to go and do some reading love. And maybe some thinking. 

Despite its age and becoming less fashionable, Erich Fromm's "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness" is still possibly the most useful introductory book on thus subject

Thanks for this recommendation -  I have several of his books already

Oh dear. The "go educate yourself" response. If you have a point, make it.

I've read his other book about rationality, I thought that was excellent, so will have to give this one a try

Most extant hunter-gatherer societies seem to give thanks to the animal they have killed, in small rituals that seem the antithesis of violence; quiet, contemplative moments.

Nature. children fight 

Just turn all electricity off to Europe, 72hrs later..   no water, no fuel, no money, shops run out of stock, no street lights, no communication once reserves run out... even the pacifists will be fighting each other to survive. Civilised society is held together by thin threads, a few days of hunger and thirst will rapidly change many people's moral values. 

Far too simplistic. Children are being shaped by their environment from the moment they’re conceived. Maternal behaviour and experiences during pregnancy affect how sensitive the foetus’s brain becomes to different hormones and neurotransmitters. The first hour after birth has lasting implications for relationships later in life. The first couple of years of life are characterised by a truly astonishing amount of brain development and learning. The list goes on. From the moment of conception our environment is leaving its mark on the rest of our life. Indeed, one of the benefits of human children being born so vulnerable and underdeveloped in comparison to other species is that it loads the die in favour of adaptive learning rather than unconscious instinct.

As someone said above, “nature or nurture” is the wrong question to ask about human behaviour.  

But at the same time studies of twins separated when young or at birth, adopted by very different families show that genetically at least 50% of our traits, intellect, likes and dislikes were set at the point of conception. 

Basically all animals display aggressive behaviour at some times and in some form.  It's a survival instinct.  We're just animals - most of us manage to suppress it most of the time, but some better than others and occasionally it does sneak through.

You might be surprised by how few people turn to violence in this situation. We are a social species. I think that the majority of people would cope by giving, trading and helping each other.

Yes, I'd be very surprised.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vicious-fight-erupts-between-shopp...

Ah yes, I think I remember that. Hilarious 😂 

A classic book on the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Aggression

Yes. A quick bit of maths will show you that leaves around 50% of variance which isn’t explained by genes. As I said, “nature or nurture” is the wrong question. Human behaviour is an ongoing interplay between the two. 

In particular, a blanket assumption that children’s behaviour must be governed solely by genetics is just plain wrong.

I'd agree, early years learning between parents who give a 2hit and those who don't certainly shows the difference. But we also have ingrained traits, drivers etc that are hard to ignore, say psychopath tendencies- educated psychopaths might arguably rise in the workplace (senior tory mps), uneducated turn to crime (Massive generalisation warning!).

The fact that a fight in an Australian supermarket can make the Mirror over here does rather underline how rare such an incident is.

I'd still suggest given 72hrs with no power and all it entails primal instincts will start to take over. Yes, people can be incredibly forgiving, generous, work together, but that's usually because their personal plight isn't so bad, they can see the suffering will be short lived etc... those in Ukraine aren't fighting and risking their lives because it could still all be roses if Russia won, they are prepared to kill for personal survival, even if 18 months ago it was something they'd never imagine themselves doing. 

Note, the fighting in the shop I linked wasn't because they were starving, thirsty, freezing, had a young family to feed, they were only hoarding bog roll! 

I just don't agree with the suggestion that the default behaviour arising from extreme hardship is to fight over limited resources. Yes there will always be some people predisposed to aggression, but the overriding behaviour will be people offering help. 

2 words. Toilet rolls.

Arguing in a supermarket is not much to worry about and the fact that we raise it is testament to how much most of us have thankfully removed routine violence from our daily lives. 

The bottom line is that despite our obsession with violence and aggressive behaviour it is in fact extremely rare. To inflict serious physical harm or death on another human is very difficult and most people have a visceral aversion to it. Just look at the numbers from the second world war that show most infantrymen rarely fired their weapons, let alone at an actual other human.

Armies had to work hard to change their training post war to install a more reflexive kill (or at least aim to kill) response in their (increasingly professional and self selecting) troops. 

Most of us don't like violence and will avoid it wherever possible. We think the natural state is to descend into something like Lord of the Flies, forgetting that violence and bullying is nurtured in rigid institutions like prisons or boarding schools (I believe Golding was a headteacher at one) but left to their own devices in a more egalitarian setting with the ability to make choices children will more likely cooperate like those kids cast away in the South Pacific. 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-wh...

But in this age, persons who sign up for the armed forces must be averagely more willing to kill ie. more aggressive ??

People have so many heroes in the movies. Some of it is gratuitous violence, but in many cases killing is framed by the need and the right to act for justice or for common benefit (rightly or wrongly)

child animals too - it is intrinsic.  I think it goes with emotion driven behaviour and that goes a long way back.

I can't believe that comment about infantrymen per se.  Fire is part of effective manouevre unless you want mass casualties.  I think there is research to say that many infantry avoided aimed shots at individuals but volley fire is often required and ordered so that part of an attacking force can move while enemy fire is suppressed.  One of the primary roles of machine guns when fired is not necessarily to kill but to deny the enemy movement within specific areas.  It is also good at suppressing enemy fire.

If these orders are not carried out you put all around you at risk of harm and you won't last long.

If what you say is true then there would have been few survivors of these infantry attacks during WW2

but in both humans and animals, playful sparring borders on inflicting real pain, teaching the boundary between play and acceptable harm / suffering

Our vocal cords and language ability surely show we are genetically programmed for collaboration. That will be driven probably mostly by Darwinian selection during extreme hardship rather than during less critical times of plenty. We are genetically programmed to collaborate, probably due to hardship.

Compared to other animals, young humans are useless. They require years of unproductive education supported by a family, tribe or nation. A baby's brain limited by the size of the birth canal matures into an adult brain in just over twenty years. Unsubtle "macroscopic" features like that are genetic. However that means an adult human stands on the shoulders of giants and knows how to hunt sabre toothed tigers, adapt to jungle and artic tundra or treat cancers.

By collaborating, humans can fight off woolly mammoths, polar bears and smallpox or COVID19 by developing technologies such as flint tipped weapons and vaccines. 

Psychopathy is an alternative breeding strategy that works. Hence the genes for it don't die out.

However if you imagine two human species that can't interbreed, the collaborative human species would have the ability to exterminate the psycho human species like any other species that lacks teamwork.

There's no "I" in "team"  

Yeah. It's pretty standard from basic infantry to SF. If you have an enemy in a fixed position, you need to keep their heads down while half your troops are up on their feet running (forwards or backwards), aimed shots ideally, but chiefly close enough that they dare not stick a head up. A balance between suppressing them and conserving ammo. Granted this is simplified as there could be enemy on the flanks, mortar positions further back, or snipers.. 

Possibly discredited research, however just something I heard in a podcast.

https://play.acast.com/s/wehaveways/usa-we-have-ways-men-against-fire

Or be domesticated livestock for the psychos who do teamwork

Has no one ever used their vocal cords to tell you to f£&@ off? 

Ever heard of Thatcher and Chelsea Tractors ?