'Fittest' means 'friendliest,' not 'most aggressive

[Angry Floof]

^ ^ ^

I have to wonder if you really believe this or if you only think you believe it.

Do you, your family, and friends ever lock the doors of your homes?

How many of the homeless have you invited to move into and share your home and food? You have so much and they have nothing.

Do you think nothing of walking alone through the "bad parts" of a city at 1 A.M.?

What is this fallacy? Straw man? Poisoning the well? Several rolled into a such a short post?

That's actually a very good example of responding more out of animal brain fear than from executive functioning, objectivity, or even curiosity. No offense, skeptical bip, but seriously, dude.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

I have to wonder if you really believe this or if you only think you believe it.

Do you, your family, and friends ever lock the doors of your homes?

How many of the homeless have you invited to move into and share your home and food? You have so much and they have nothing.

Do you think nothing of walking alone through the "bad parts" of a city at 1 A.M.?

What is this fallacy? Straw man? Poisoning the well? Several rolled into a such a short post?

That's actually a very good example of responding more out of animal brain fear than from executive functioning, objectivity, or even curiosity. No offense, skeptical bip, but seriously, dude.

Seriously, I was wondering if you really believed (so practiced) what you are claiming or if you just thought you believed it.

 

[Angry Floof]

That's actually a very good example of responding more out of animal brain fear than from executive functioning, objectivity, or even curiosity. No offense, skeptical bip, but seriously, dude.

Seriously, I was wondering if you really believed (so practiced) what you are claiming or if you just thought you believed it.

Responding to my immediate environment (yes, we usually lock the door at night in this neighborhood) is not the same as thinking about the potential of humankind based on all the knowledge we have of ourselves that I can access, both positive and negative. You cannot squeeze that into one individual's personal experience in a limited space and time. Everything changes constantly, and it pays to challenge the automatic negative assumptions when speculating about anything.

The narrative in our heads and therefore in our cultures and information flow tends to be far more negative than reality. We can make dystopian future films to our negative hearts' desire, but yet here we are, yes, facing problems and threats, but overall doing better than ever in recorded history in terms of economic stability, peaceful relations, prosperity, health, and education.

This moment in this place is not indicative of the whole planet and it is temporary. There is no reason to think that all will come crashing down because this moment in this place looks quite shitty. As I said before, I can't completely discount the possibility that we'll destroy ourselves and maybe our planet, too. We certainly have the means and the ignorance. But every generation for millennia has thought its own time was the end times. "OMG it's Armageddon" is not new or uncommon. And given that humanity has continued to progress around the world in ways that contribute greatly to peace and well being, there is no reason to conclude that this scary moment in time in this place is going to end that. If anything, the problems we see today, no matter how horrifying they may look to us as we experience life in this time, will very likely turn out to be temporary downturns and not a sure slide into global destruction or regression to primal old brain behavior. (You'd actually have to do some damage to the frontal lobes of a good portion of humanity to really achieve that in any way that resembles the negative views people have expressed about the potential of humankind anyway.)

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't think it does well to be too cynical or negative about this and I don't think we can afford to be that. More co-operation would be a good thing, and in terms of the major issues currently facing humans (and the planet) I think it will be necessary now more than ever and so should be encouraged. So it's a welcome article in the general sense, even if it does suffer slightly in the way that mass media/popular writings tend to. The article makes some good points, and so do you, Angry Floof.

 

[DrZoidberg]

OK, show of hands. Who here actually read the article? Or better yet, the book?

I read the article. Not the book

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I think you're all focusing on aggression to the exclusion of the fitness and survival aspects of the argument.

From pre-history to the present day, small communities who couldn't relax suspicion, enough to trust outside groups who were not a threat, and thus have access to trade and other forms of communication, were the last to get the wheel, glass blowing, ceramics, tantalum etc., unless they invented the lot independently.

Whether or not your first response is aggression, your culture cuts itself off from innovation (and genetic diversity) if it can't control aggression where appropriate and take part in the general progress of the race as a whole.

That's how to become a backwater, and die out.

 

[fromderinside]

Ah, the manageable testosterone and estrogen person.

At last.

Turn on the hoses and cool these people off. Don't want another Wynne-Edwards vs Williams Social Selection episode do we? Didn't go well for Wynne-Edwards yano.

Fitness means surviving to reproduce. Many different games in aggregate leading to "Hey! A baby from my baby and mate." War, Peace, civilize, decay, fitness is getting through it all. No single squirt can assure that.

 

[Angry Floof]

Ah, the manageable testosterone and estrogen person.

At last.

Turn on the hoses and cool these people off. Don't want another Wynne-Edwards vs Williams Social Selection episode do we? Didn't go well for Wynne-Edwards yano.

We don't need to condition ourselves toward aggression. Aggressive behavior is not a given. It's cultivated, and it is not only not necessary for the peace and well being of a tribe of seven billion humans, it's actually detrimental to that goal.

Remember the baboon colony that lost all of its dominant, aggressive males to food poisoning? They went on to live peacefully, with minimal aggression, and young males were not conditioned to aggression because there were no aggressive males to condition them.

We humans have such a capacity for self awareness and analysis of our own thoughts and behavior that baboons don't. Of course we can become a vastly more peaceful tribe of seven billion. Of course we can. This is a no brainer. Will we? Maybe not. Nothing is guaranteed. But it's utter nonsense that aggression must remain a dominant feature of human behavior as we continue to evolve.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Ah, the manageable testosterone and estrogen person.

At last.

Turn on the hoses and cool these people off. Don't want another Wynne-Edwards vs Williams Social Selection episode do we? Didn't go well for Wynne-Edwards yano.

We don't need to condition ourselves toward aggression. Aggressive behavior is not a given. It's cultivated, and it is not only not necessary for the peace and well being of a tribe of seven billion humans, it's actually detrimental to that goal.

Remember the baboon colony that lost all of its dominant, aggressive males to food poisoning? They went on to live peacefully, with minimal aggression, and young males were not conditioned to aggression because there were no aggressive males to condition them.

We humans have such a capacity for self awareness and analysis of our own thoughts and behavior that baboons don't. Of course we can become a vastly more peaceful tribe of seven billion. Of course we can. This is a no brainer. Will we? Maybe not. Nothing is guaranteed. But it's utter nonsense that aggression must remain a dominant feature of human behavior as we continue to evolve.

I hadn't heard of this, so I googled it.

Very interesting: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2004/04/kinder-gentler-baboon

What does this possibly say about the current pandemic and the US or world culture? Most of the idiots strongly resisting precautions, and thus most likely to suffer/die are the more right wing aggressive sorts (of both genders). I wonder what percentage of those types would have to die off to cause a shift?

 

[Angry Floof]

Ah, the manageable testosterone and estrogen person.

At last.

Turn on the hoses and cool these people off. Don't want another Wynne-Edwards vs Williams Social Selection episode do we? Didn't go well for Wynne-Edwards yano.

We don't need to condition ourselves toward aggression. Aggressive behavior is not a given. It's cultivated, and it is not only not necessary for the peace and well being of a tribe of seven billion humans, it's actually detrimental to that goal.

Remember the baboon colony that lost all of its dominant, aggressive males to food poisoning? They went on to live peacefully, with minimal aggression, and young males were not conditioned to aggression because there were no aggressive males to condition them.

We humans have such a capacity for self awareness and analysis of our own thoughts and behavior that baboons don't. Of course we can become a vastly more peaceful tribe of seven billion. Of course we can. This is a no brainer. Will we? Maybe not. Nothing is guaranteed. But it's utter nonsense that aggression must remain a dominant feature of human behavior as we continue to evolve.

I hadn't heard of this, so I googled it.

Very interesting: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2004/04/kinder-gentler-baboon

What does this possibly say about the current pandemic and the US or world culture? Most of the idiots strongly resisting precautions, and thus most likely to suffer/die are the more right wing aggressive sorts (of both genders). I wonder what percentage of those types would have to die off to cause a shift?

I don't know. I have two thoughts on this, though. One, the coronavirus doesn't care who it infects or how aggressive or dumb they are. When dipshits go out and expose themselves, they also expose anyone they will come in contact with after that. So it's not really a good comparison to alpha male baboons taking all the food for themselves so when it turned out to be lethally rotten, they were the only ones to die.

My second thought is that I don't like going there in my mind with regard to human males. I like too many of them to think or speak objectively about large number of them dying in the context of leaving a less aggressive world behind them. I can talk about what if the ratio of male/female humans suddenly became massively skewed. Interesting topic for speculation, though I doubt anyone could really make any realistic predictions. But I could enjoy speculating as long as I don't have to think up what kind of global tragedy would have to befall our males in order to get to that ratio.

There was a point when the news was reporting that more men die of COVID than women and of course there followed some comments about maybe Mother Nature is sorting out the aggression problem for us. Thankfully, I don't think that's true.

 

[fromderinside]

Ah, the manageable testosterone and estrogen person.

At last.

Turn on the hoses and cool these people off. Don't want another Wynne-Edwards vs Williams Social Selection episode do we? Didn't go well for Wynne-Edwards yano.

We don't need to condition ourselves toward aggression. Aggressive behavior is not a given. It's cultivated, and it is not only not necessary for the peace and well being of a tribe of seven billion humans, it's actually detrimental to that goal.

Remember the baboon colony that lost all of its dominant, aggressive males to food poisoning? They went on to live peacefully, with minimal aggression, and young males were not conditioned to aggression because there were no aggressive males to condition them.

We humans have such a capacity for self awareness and analysis of our own thoughts and behavior that baboons don't. Of course we can become a vastly more peaceful tribe of seven billion. Of course we can. This is a no brainer. Will we? Maybe not. Nothing is guaranteed. But it's utter nonsense that aggression must remain a dominant feature of human behavior as we continue to evolve.

First let me say that "it can" isn't theory, It is conjecture based on rational discussion of a prototype example. What happens for one looking for a fortuitous example- one that makes one's case - is that one finds the example, broadcasts it according to her inclinations then fights for the next forty years to salvage her reputation. Its the very reason I brought up Wynne-Edwards and social selection, a declaration that made the abrasive Dawkins' career while destroying his own.

When it comes to basics one goes to basics. Even the natural observation gang (ethologists) know that.

Basic social (mating) behaviors of breeding animals were demonstrated quite early with the waggle dance of fighting fish. An aggressive species to be sure, yet one needing to attract mates to fertilize and sometimes maintain maintain breeding zones. the dance is a mix between come hither I'm-gonna-get-you demonstratively shown to be due to varying testosterone and estrogen responding brain tissues during mating periods. Later Robert Schneirla showed innervation by aspects of autonomic nervous system supported such conclusions across species.

Very complex brains of humans are not really comparable for social behavior to even monkeys, and perhaps just a little with social behavior to larger tribe apes.

It's really a mistake to track social fitness by aggression or succorance since these raw motive sets are quite strongly linked to hormones and target organs and structures which themselves behave or use these hormones differently.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Remember the baboon colony that lost all of its dominant, aggressive males to food poisoning? They went on to live peacefully, with minimal aggression, and young males were not conditioned to aggression because there were no aggressive males to condition them.

.

What?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ah, the manageable testosterone and estrogen person.

At last.

Turn on the hoses and cool these people off. Don't want another Wynne-Edwards vs Williams Social Selection episode do we? Didn't go well for Wynne-Edwards yano.

We don't need to condition ourselves toward aggression. Aggressive behavior is not a given. It's cultivated, and it is not only not necessary for the peace and well being of a tribe of seven billion humans, it's actually detrimental to that goal.

Remember the baboon colony that lost all of its dominant, aggressive males to food poisoning? They went on to live peacefully, with minimal aggression, and young males were not conditioned to aggression because there were no aggressive males to condition them.

We humans have such a capacity for self awareness and analysis of our own thoughts and behavior that baboons don't. Of course we can become a vastly more peaceful tribe of seven billion. Of course we can. This is a no brainer. Will we? Maybe not. Nothing is guaranteed. But it's utter nonsense that aggression must remain a dominant feature of human behavior as we continue to evolve.

Pretty much all rapes and violent crime is committed by men. All over the world. No, its not a muscle mass thing. Women can also use weapons. It's a hormone thing.

The problem with calling it a learned behavior is that we're telling society and parents of highly masculine men that they are doing it wrong. It's like back when we thought aspergers was the result of cold and distant parenting.

1. It's not going to solve the problem.
2. It's cruel. It's shaming people who did nothing wrong.

Its better to accept that we are a violent species. If you are a low testosterone man without violent urges, good for you.

I'm very happy I found martial arts as a kid and had discipline litteraly beaten into me. I was still a violent little troublemaker. I'm convinced that subconsciously I was drawn to the lifestyle because I needed that discipline. Otherwise it would have ended badly for me. And I'm far from the most masculine guy out there.

My behaviour is a world apart from me at 20. I'm over 40 now. No it's not just maturity and having learned stuff. It's way less testosterone.

 

[skepticalbip]

Remember the baboon colony that lost all of its dominant, aggressive males to food poisoning? They went on to live peacefully, with minimal aggression, and young males were not conditioned to aggression because there were no aggressive males to condition them.

.

What?

My reaction too. The most aggressive critters I have seen are females defending their young any time they think there is danger.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Remember the baboon colony that lost all of its dominant, aggressive males to food poisoning? They went on to live peacefully, with minimal aggression, and young males were not conditioned to aggression because there were no aggressive males to condition them.

.

What?

My reaction too. The most aggressive critters I have seen are females defending their young any time they think there is danger.

defending != aggressive.

This concludes today's basic dictionary concepts.

 

[Angry Floof]

Remember the baboon colony that lost all of its dominant, aggressive males to food poisoning? They went on to live peacefully, with minimal aggression, and young males were not conditioned to aggression because there were no aggressive males to condition them.

.

What?

My reaction too. The most aggressive critters I have seen are females defending their young any time they think there is danger.

Defensive violence is not the same thing as using violence to dominate. Protect and dominate are two very different things. It's not at all useful to conflate the two when talking about human aggression vs. friendliness.

Also, subgroup domination is not necessary to the survival of the whole anyway. Cooperation is, though.

And just a general comment: Humankind is awash with cooperation and friendliness. We are swimming in it. Cooperation and peaceful exchanges are ubiquitous in human activity. It's much closer to the substrate of humanness than a quirk. It's everywhere, all the time. Violence and cruelty do exist, obviously, but they are not ubiquitous or definitive or the basic essence of human behavior.

To some people. I think asking them to notice this is like asking a fish to notice water. They might as well say that solar flares define the sun and nuclear fusion is superficial nicety.

 

[bigfield]

I think our biggest challenge in the modern world is adapting to a tribe of seven billion after having evolved in small groups over eons. Our brains are highly plastic, but eons of animal brain is a strong influence, especially considering that our ideological world evolved out of those animal impulses and some ideologies specifically hijack the more aggressive, fear based, reactive primal impulses.

On an individual level, we're pretty lousy at conceptually and emotionally expanding our tribe, but I think that we largely solved that problem millennia ago with government. Government allows millions of strangers to coexist with little to no consideration for each other in extremely dense habitats, pursuing relatively narrow-minded goals such as providing for a family or pursuing self-actualisation. And that's just a city, let alone a country, let alone the entire world. On the scale of long term trends, governments are getting better at providing a harmonious society. Not everyone is doing it the same way; some are doing better than others, and there are often backwards steps, but overall we're moving further away from primitive power structures, violent chaos and inter-state competition.

 

[fromderinside]

Looked at with an objective view there is no difference between dominating (defending from seen threat) and defending (aggressing against seen threat). The one defending feels the one aggressing is trying to dominate and the one aggressing thinks the one she trying to suppress is a threat. In most cases these views are both reasonable. Eye of the beholder.

It'd only when values or perceived differences clash do distinctions in motive arise. A child is worth fighting to protect or have. An ideology is worth defending or suppressing.

Through the looking glass?

Lastly, as I've pointed out we are a very, very, social species. Social value holding follow from social structure properties. Just as I pointed out to rousseau elsewhere top down is the direction of value establishment. Influence drives values.The US isn't a nation of selfish people it's a nation lead by selfish people at present.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Looked at with an objective blinkered view there is no difference between dominating (defending from seen threat) and defending (aggressing against seen threat). The one defending feels the one aggressing is trying to dominate and the one aggressing thinks the one she trying to suppress is a threat. In most cases these views are both reasonable. Eye of the beholder.

It'd only when values or perceived differences clash do distinctions in motive arise. A child is worth fighting to protect or have. An ideology is worth defending or suppressing.

Through the looking glass?

Lastly, as I've pointed out we are a very, very, social species. Social value holding follow from social structure properties. Just as I pointed out to rousseau elsewhere top down is the direction of value establishment. Influence drives values.The US isn't a nation of selfish people it's a nation lead by selfish people at present.

FIXT.

Dominating/aggression is, as being used here (and in general) implying that one is the initiator of violence/bullying. Defending is reacting to those actions or perceived actions.

I realize this may be hard for a few people to understand, but where are you on that spectrum? I ask because I may need to adjust my responses if that's the case.

 

[skepticalbip]

My reaction too. The most aggressive critters I have seen are females defending their young any time they think there is danger.

defending != aggressive.

This concludes today's basic dictionary concepts.

Yes. Any critter that assaults any other critter that comes what they consider too close to their young or their territory is aggressive even though they are 'defending' what consider theirs.

I would assume that if you were walking down a sidewalk and a dog rushed out and attacked you that you would consider it aggressive even though the dog thought it was defending her young or her territory.