What is hatred, how did it evolve, what is it's purpose?

[rousseau]

This is a question that I don't have any answers for, but where I'm curious about the perspective and insight of others. The questions are as follows -

- what exactly is the definition of hatred?
- why did hatred evolve as a psychological trait that exists in humans?
- what problem of ours does it solve?

 

[Politesse]

Hatred is the amygdala in action, phrased in abstraction so people feel that it is contextualized. All animals with a complex neural anatomy have a panic condition leading to aggression and/or avoidance, which generally keeps them safe in natural environments, and we are no different in basic configuration, only in the very complex lattice that has formed around our own fight or flight response.

 

[Jokodo]

This is a question that I don't have any answers for, but where I'm curious about the perspective and insight of others. The questions are as follows -

- what exactly is the definition of hatred?

You need to tell us. Unless you want a dictionary definition (in which case your go-to resource should be a dictionary, not the TFR forums), you should be providing an operational definition in light of which you want your other questions addressed as the very first thing. If you leave that definition to others, you risk that every response talks about a different phenomenon.

- why did hatred evolve as a psychological trait that exists in humans?

It almost certainly didn't, not the way you appear to imagine. Depending on what it is you want to talk about, the answer is probably "it's inherited from some early reptilian/amphibian ancestor and hasn't really changed since", or possibly the effect of some post-hoc rationalization of such, but not an independent trait that's in any way typical for humans. Also, though I'm no expert endocrinologist, I believe it's not sharply delineated from other negative emotions (fear, disgust) in terms of the physiological reactions involved, so calling it a unique "psychological trait" as though meaningfully separable from those is probably not tenable.

- what problem of ours does it solve?

Am I getting crazy or did you edit your post? I could have sworn it said "purpose" there just minutes ago. I guess that was in the title instead. Teleology at its best.

Anyway, traits don't exist to solve a problem, they persist because they make it statistically more likely for its bearer to survive. They can do so in roundabout ways, or despite nearly as often killing you. Phrasing evolutionary questions in engineering terms is severely misleading more often than not.

 

[bilby]

Traits persist if they don't make it sufficiently less likely for those that exhibit them to reproduce.

If there's no easy mechanism whereby a more successful sub-population could arise that is free of a given trait, then it will persost even if harmful - that's probably why we don't see a large population of humans born without an appendix.

 

[Jokodo]

Here's a paper about the physiology of hatred, though not sure if that's maybe too narrow compared to what you want discussed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569212/

In general, it's always a good idea to clarify what it is you want to discuss and what we're actually know about it's "implementation" before asking the how and why questions.

 

[Jokodo]

Traits persist if they don't make it sufficiently less likely for those that exhibit them to reproduce.

If there's no easy mechanism whereby a more successful sub-population could arise that is free of a given trait, then it will persost even if harmful - that's probably why we don't see a large population of humans born without an appendix.

Indeed.

Also, what is a trait even? Not everything we have a nice little label for is a coherent entity from a genetic and/ or developmental perspective, and "hatred" is probably a good candidate for something that isn't. It's, best as I can tell, a region in the continuum of fight and flight responses without clear boundaries or an independent history.

 

[rousseau]

You need to tell us. Unless you want a dictionary definition (in which case your go-to resource should be a dictionary, not the TFR forums), you should be providing an operational definition in light of which you want your other questions addressed as the very first thing. If you leave that definition to others, you risk that every response talks about a different phenomenon.



It almost certainly didn't, not the way you appear to imagine. Depending on what it is you want to talk about, the answer is probably "it's inherited from some early reptilian/amphibian ancestor and hasn't really changed since", or possibly the effect of some post-hoc rationalization of such, but not an independent trait that's in any way typical for humans. Also, though I'm no expert endocrinologist, I believe it's not sharply delineated from other negative emotions (fear, disgust) in terms of the physiological reactions involved, so calling it a unique "psychological trait" as though meaningfully separable from those is probably not tenable.

- what problem of ours does it solve?

Am I getting crazy or did you edit your post? I could have sworn it said "purpose" there just minutes ago. I guess that was in the title instead. Teleology at its best.

Anyway, traits don't exist to solve a problem, they persist because they make it statistically more likely for its bearer to survive. They can do so in roundabout ways, or despite nearly as often killing you. Phrasing evolutionary questions in engineering terms is severely misleading more often than not.

Here's a paper about the physiology of hatred, though not sure if that's maybe too narrow compared to what you want discussed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569212/

In general, it's always a good idea to clarify what it is you want to discuss and what we're actually know about it's "implementation" before asking the how and why questions.

In this case I intentionally avoided including a definition so as to not frame the conversation in a certain way. Because I'm more interested in a multitude of perspectives toward the end of a clear definition, rather than giving one that might be false from the outset.

 

[rousseau]

Traits persist if they don't make it sufficiently less likely for those that exhibit them to reproduce.

If there's no easy mechanism whereby a more successful sub-population could arise that is free of a given trait, then it will persost even if harmful - that's probably why we don't see a large population of humans born without an appendix.

So you'd claim that this is true of our propensity for hatred then? It's never a useful quality for those who hold it?

 

[Jokodo]

Here's a paper about the physiology of hatred, though not sure if that's maybe too narrow compared to what you want discussed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569212/

In general, it's always a good idea to clarify what it is you want to discuss and what we're actually know about it's "implementation" before asking the how and why questions.

In this case I intentionally avoided including a definition so as to not frame the conversation in a certain way. Because I'm more interested in a multitude of perspectives toward the end of a clear definition, rather than giving one that might be false from the outset.

Definitions aren't true or false, they are at best useful or useless - and a precondition to have a meaningful conversation.

 

[rousseau]

Here's a paper about the physiology of hatred, though not sure if that's maybe too narrow compared to what you want discussed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569212/

In general, it's always a good idea to clarify what it is you want to discuss and what we're actually know about it's "implementation" before asking the how and why questions.

In this case I intentionally avoided including a definition so as to not frame the conversation in a certain way. Because I'm more interested in a multitude of perspectives toward the end of a clear definition, rather than giving one that might be false from the outset.

Definitions aren't true or false, they are at best useful or useless - and a precondition to have a meaningful conversation.

I agree, that's why I'm inviting the definition from others.

Hatred is the amygdala in action, phrased in abstraction so people feel that it is contextualized. All animals with a complex neural anatomy have a panic condition leading to aggression and/or avoidance, which generally keeps them safe in natural environments, and we are no different in basic configuration, only in the very complex lattice that has formed around our own fight or flight response.

^^ that might be a good start.

 

[Jokodo]

Traits persist if they don't make it sufficiently less likely for those that exhibit them to reproduce.

If there's no easy mechanism whereby a more successful sub-population could arise that is free of a given trait, then it will persost even if harmful - that's probably why we don't see a large population of humans born without an appendix.

So you'd claim that this is true of our propensity for hatred then? It's never a useful quality for those who hold it?

I can't speak for bilby, but here's my two cents: the fight-or-flight complex has kept our ancestors alive through dangerous situations since before they left the ocean, though often enough by over-reacting to harmless stimuli. It's pretty much a textbook example of false positives being less costly than false negatives: Panic at what might be a snake but really is a branch, and you've needlessly spent a few calories. Stay calm at what "might just be a branch" and you're snake food.

At the most basic level, hatred is a part of that complex. Whether "hatred" itself, if we pretend that it has fallen from the sky as an isolated trait, is (still) useful is a different question and one that cannot be meaningfully discussed until you define what it is you want to refer to with "hatred". If we understand hatred to exclude situations of panic requiring an immediate reaction, and restrict it to permanent, fixed reactions to a trigger not tied to a situation*, it has arguably become obsolete the moment we developed means of more systematic deliberation (still long before we left the trees), but is bound to stay with us as part of the deeply ingrained fight-or-flight response system that's still our fastest way to deal with immediate danger.

So, arguably, yes, it has no (current) function - as adult humans, in those situations where we experience hatred (as opposed to panic or disgust), we're likely better off using rational decision making to guide our behaviour instead. It's however bound to stay with us as it uses some of the same neurological and developmental pathways as panic and disgust - and those still save lives everyday, even as they are triggered needlessly just as often. Of course, the answer will depend on your definition of "hatred" more than anything else.

(* E.g. "For our emotional response to being hurt to remain with us as hatred, it must be fixed to something more permanent than the single event." - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hatred)

 

[Jokodo]

Definitions aren't true or false, they are at best useful or useless - and a precondition to have a meaningful conversation.

I agree, that's why I'm inviting the definition from others.

Well that's just stupid. When you asked your questions in the OP, clearly you had something in mind. Otherwise, you could have just started with "please debate stuff here".

 

[rousseau]

At the most basic level, hatred is a part of that complex. Whether "hatred" itself, if we pretend that it has fallen from the sky as an isolated trait, is (still) useful is a different question and one that cannot be meaningfully discussed until you define what it is you want to refer to with "hatred". If we understand hatred to exclude situations of panic requiring an immediate reaction, and restrict it to permanent, fixed reactions to a trigger not tied to a situation*, it has arguably become obsolete the moment we developed means of more systematic deliberation (still long before we left the trees), but is bound to stay with us as part of the deeply ingrained fight-or-flight response system that's still our fastest way to deal with immediate danger.

That sounds like a good definition to go with.

My question would be - what about it's value in people who aren't capable of systematic deliberation? I could imagine some value as a kind of instinctive, visceral learned response in some people. For example, the racist white man living in a predominantly racist community is likely served by being viscerally afraid and hateful of other races. These emotions would cause him to partner more closely with those like him, which may improve the odds of his reproductive success for a number of reasons, as well the reproductive success of his kids.

Systematic deliberation, in this case, which causes him to overcome his 'permanent, fixed reaction' seems more counter-productive than productive to me.

 

[rousseau]

Definitions aren't true or false, they are at best useful or useless - and a precondition to have a meaningful conversation.

I agree, that's why I'm inviting the definition from others.

Well that's just stupid. When you asked your questions in the OP, clearly you had something in mind. Otherwise, you could have just started with "please debate stuff here".

Curiosity about other's opinions rather than defaulting to expressing one's own opinion is a thing we can do too. Why not?

 

[Jokodo]

At the most basic level, hatred is a part of that complex. Whether "hatred" itself, if we pretend that it has fallen from the sky as an isolated trait, is (still) useful is a different question and one that cannot be meaningfully discussed until you define what it is you want to refer to with "hatred". If we understand hatred to exclude situations of panic requiring an immediate reaction, and restrict it to permanent, fixed reactions to a trigger not tied to a situation*, it has arguably become obsolete the moment we developed means of more systematic deliberation (still long before we left the trees), but is bound to stay with us as part of the deeply ingrained fight-or-flight response system that's still our fastest way to deal with immediate danger.

That sounds like a good definition to go with.

My question would be - what about it's value in people who aren't capable of systematic deliberation? I could imagine some value as a kind of instinctive, visceral learned response in some people. For example, the racist white man living in a predominantly racist community is likely served by being viscerally afraid and hateful of other races. These emotions would cause him to partner more closely with those like him, which may improve the odds of his reproductive success for a number of reasons, as well the reproductive success of his kids.

Systematic deliberation, in this case, which causes him to overcome his 'permanent, fixed reaction' seems more counter-productive than productive to me.

That's dangerously close to defining lung cancer as an evolved feature of our species because there was that one guy who survived being stabbed because the tumor stopped a knive that would otherwise have perforated his heart.

Also, it doesn't really make sense. He could still pretend to be "viscerally afraid and hateful of other races" after conscious deliberation, and still have the option to engage in mutually beneficial interactions with members of other races when no-one looks, and be better off for it.

Really, contrary to what creationists and others with a teleological inclination believe, plenty of things biological do not, or no longer, serve a function.

 

[rousseau]

At the most basic level, hatred is a part of that complex. Whether "hatred" itself, if we pretend that it has fallen from the sky as an isolated trait, is (still) useful is a different question and one that cannot be meaningfully discussed until you define what it is you want to refer to with "hatred". If we understand hatred to exclude situations of panic requiring an immediate reaction, and restrict it to permanent, fixed reactions to a trigger not tied to a situation*, it has arguably become obsolete the moment we developed means of more systematic deliberation (still long before we left the trees), but is bound to stay with us as part of the deeply ingrained fight-or-flight response system that's still our fastest way to deal with immediate danger.

That sounds like a good definition to go with.

My question would be - what about it's value in people who aren't capable of systematic deliberation? I could imagine some value as a kind of instinctive, visceral learned response in some people. For example, the racist white man living in a predominantly racist community is likely served by being viscerally afraid and hateful of other races. These emotions would cause him to partner more closely with those like him, which may improve the odds of his reproductive success for a number of reasons, as well the reproductive success of his kids.

Systematic deliberation, in this case, which causes him to overcome his 'permanent, fixed reaction' seems more counter-productive than productive to me.

That's dangerously close to defining lung cancer as an evolved feature of our species because there was that one guy who survived being stabbed because the tumor stopped a knive that would otherwise have perforated his heart.

Really, contrary to what creationists and others with a teleological inclination believe, plenty of things biological do not, or no longer, serve a function.

I'm not saying it definitely does serve a function. It very well may not. That's what I'm trying to understand. In response to your post, my above explanation sounds quite plausible to me.

 

[Jokodo]

That's dangerously close to defining lung cancer as an evolved feature of our species because there was that one guy who survived being stabbed because the tumor stopped a knive that would otherwise have perforated his heart.

Really, contrary to what creationists and others with a teleological inclination believe, plenty of things biological do not, or no longer, serve a function.

I'm not saying it definitely does serve a function. It very well may not. That's what I'm trying to understand. In response to your post, my above explanation sounds quite plausible to me.

It isn't. (See also my edit to the last post).

Also, you originally asked "what problem of ours does it solve?" - an engineering question, not a biology question, as I've objected before. In your scenario, it doesn't solve any problem, it creates a problem and provides a workaround for that very problem.

 

[rousseau]

That's dangerously close to defining lung cancer as an evolved feature of our species because there was that one guy who survived being stabbed because the tumor stopped a knive that would otherwise have perforated his heart.

Really, contrary to what creationists and others with a teleological inclination believe, plenty of things biological do not, or no longer, serve a function.

I'm not saying it definitely does serve a function. It very well may not. That's what I'm trying to understand. In response to your post, my above explanation sounds quite plausible to me.

It isn't. (See also my edit to the last post).

I'm very open to changing my mind, and not convinced of the explanation either. But this:

He could still pretend to be "viscerally afraid and hateful of other races" after conscious deliberation, and still have the option to engage in mutually beneficial interactions with members of other races when no-one looks, and be better off for it.

Doesn't sound like a tenable rebuttal.

I'm not trying to make this into an argument where I defend a position, which you seem to be primed for. I'm just interested in understanding the psychological phenomena of hate.

 

[Jokodo]

It isn't. (See also my edit to the last post).

I'm very open to changing my mind, and not convinced of the explanation either. But this:

He could still pretend to be "viscerally afraid and hateful of other races" after conscious deliberation, and still have the option to engage in mutually beneficial interactions with members of other races when no-one looks, and be better off for it.

Doesn't sound like a tenable rebuttal.

I'm not trying to make this into an argument where I defend a position, which you seem to be primed for. I'm just interested in understanding the psychological phenomena of hate.

Not recognisably. You seem to be very much married to the idea that hate has an evolved function that it still fulfills better than any alternative, and ignore any and all statements explaining to you why you cannot and should not presume that, and that evolution simply doesn't work that way.

 

[rousseau]

I'm very open to changing my mind, and not convinced of the explanation either. But this:



Doesn't sound like a tenable rebuttal.

I'm not trying to make this into an argument where I defend a position, which you seem to be primed for. I'm just interested in understanding the psychological phenomena of hate.

Not recognisably. You seem to be very much married to the idea that hate has an evolved function that it still fulfills better than any alternative, and ignore any and all statements explaining to you why you cannot and should not presume that, and that evolution simply doesn't work that way.

No, I'm pretty much open to the idea of hatred having no evolved function, I just haven't heard a convincing argument that this is the case yet, just that it's possible.