New study suggests humans are not naturally violent.

reply to post by seabhac-rua



While the thread title talks about violence, the article in the OP discusses malevolence. My belief is that this thread deals with malevolence

The government and society teach us to be negative, as its just another way of control. The elite had spent masses of money on research into human behaviour and social engineering, after the Second World War. The effects are in full swing today, through channels such as the media - he who controls the television controls the mind.

reply to post by purplemer


That chart is incorrect. The easiest way to tell is that it lumps all herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores into one group. The truth is that there is large variance between different species of each group in these metrics.

Like the hard-core carnivores, we have fairly simple digestive systems well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down quickly. Contrary to what your magazine article says, the human small intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length (assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to support the idea that we are omnivores. Herbivores also have a variety of specialized digestive organs capable of breaking down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. Humans find cellulose totally indigestible, and even plant eaters have to take their time with it. If you were a ruminant (cud eater), for instance, you might have a stomach with four compartments, enabling you to cough up last night's alfalfa and chew on it all over again. Or you might have an enlarged cecum, a sac attached to the intestines, where rabbits and such store food until their intestinal bacteria have time to do their stuff. Digestion in such cases takes place by a process of fermentation — bacteria actually "eat" the cellulose and the host animal consumes what results, namely bacteria dung. The story is roughly the same with teeth. We're equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions.

Straight Dope

For Most Of Human History, Being An Omnivore Was No Dilemma

This study overlooks many things, first of all what does natural even mean. Go back some thousands of years when you had to hunt and kill your diner and it was natural to be more mean and vicious, come to today's age of McDonald's and were everything is taken care of by social constructs that we made and off course that sort of violence is not around.

But that is just because it is not needed, in fact if you were to act about like your ancestors did you would end up in jail or worse. In effect there is no such thing as natural in and of itself, it really is just dependent on your ecosystem more so then anything else, and in the right circumstances in the right place pretty much anybody can become violent.

There really is not such a thing as natural tendencies more like tendencies that have been conditioned or breed in, mostly by our ecosystem, there are tendencies that have been with us for so long that they have become like breathing we do them without being aware of them. But still that is because they have been the most prevalent for the longest time. Violence is in effect as natural as any other thing out there, but like every other thing out there it may be beneficial in certain circumstances, and in others not.

Our society is basically just conditioned responses to pressures, be those pressure physical, mental, societal, and even abstract pressures such as resources and scarcity of them, in fact there are many more then that but those are usually the biggest most people have on any given day to day basis. Society one could look at it as it is the domestication of the human animal for cohesive purposes, and like everything else it has been used and misused and most people fall into any number of categories were they would have a trigger or strong point, and one of those is violence. In caveman times it would of saved your life and maybe they would of been the leader of some village, in our more complicated time like I said it may land you in jail. So what once was useful for the survival of the species now can be a deterrent and is basically not needed only in certain parts of our society ie war purposes and such. And if you give it a few thousand years the things that we are conditioned today to do may also not be useful for society and be shunned, and so it seems to go.

Its like raising dogs to fight in a lot of ways, that is pit bulls or any other dog do not naturally want to go and fight and kill anything they see, they are in effect trained to do that. And when in packs they may have that natural pack instinct of protecting territories or attacking other dogs, but all that is because it is what they have been conditioned to do by nature for the purposes of survival since before the dawn of history and way before they were domesticated by humans. On itself a dog will just want few things, eat, sleep, sh*t and to lick its ass in peace. It will in no way go out of its way to get into a dog fight, even if it barks it is purely instinctual responses. But the ones you see who fight in the dog pits are trained to do that, if left to there own devices again they would just do more natural peaceful things, like sleep and run around playing.

Humans are the same, they may think otherwise but they would think wrong. So in way yes humans are not naturally violent, nothing really is. Everything just has to do what it has to do, the rest is just what they call those things that they like to do. And off course then you have certain things like social engineering for specific purposes. Which is a favorite pass time of those in power usually.

Oh yes that study has flaws in it. And there is a big difference between recognizing human tendencies, and going about your way to completely ignore them. In fact in that field to say, putting your head in the sand and acting that humans are above or anything but just another animal who has to survive on this rock we call earth has lead to more violence not less, some by willful ignorance and some was planed, but the end result is always the same and ignoring the facts always has consequences most of which are dire.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


I agree with nearly everything you wrote. Star for you. Still, we are at the top of the food chain, and have greater abilities to abstract and analyze our selves, IE self awareness than any other animal species on the planet.

I think those two qualities make our existence a bit more than mere animal. At our core, yep...totally animal, but in our potential, we may transcend these core instincts to be animalistic to a high degree in the future.

As is, we're not far enough separated in our actions, and instincts to be considered much more than crazy, hairless apes. Hopefully we live through this transitional process between mere human, and transhuman.

reply to post by moniesisfun

We shall see, but it seems humanity is walking the tightrope between animal, human, and something else that it may or may not become or evolve into. And what that something else is, well...We shall see.

Not only are humans naturally prone to violence, some are more prone then others. The discovery of the warrior gene proved this. To suggest otherwise is an affront to reality.

reply to post by moniesisfun


I'm not really saying that psychopaths have learned their behavior. I'm trying to say that if psychopaths are taught the right way they can live a life controlling much of their behavior. Trouble is they can also become leaders of people and still be psychopaths without anyone knowing they are psychopaths. Teaching a psychopath morals and how to exist normally in society sometimes still doesn't work. Psychopaths who have been trained to coexist have many powerful places in societies around the world. They have for thousands of years, hiding behind religion and at the top of governments because of their lack of true respect for the people that are under them. Look at history and look at the present, just because someone acts like they care doesn't mean they do.

Bacteria and fungi are at the top of the food chain, not humans

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by moniesisfun

 

I'm not really saying that psychopaths have learned their behavior. I'm trying to say that if psychopaths are taught the right way they can live a life controlling much of their behavior. Trouble is they can also become leaders of people and still be psychopaths without anyone knowing they are psychopaths. Teaching a psychopath morals and how to exist normally in society sometimes still doesn't work. Psychopaths who have been trained to coexist have many powerful places in societies around the world. They have for thousands of years, hiding behind religion and at the top of governments because of their lack of true respect for the people that are under them. Look at history and look at the present, just because someone acts like they care doesn't mean they do.

You can teach a psychopath what is expected, but they will never internalize the value. I agree that society can mitigate the damage to an extent.

Bacteria and fungi are at the top of the food chain, not humans

Erm, does not compute.

reply to post by moniesisfun


I concur the graph was simplistic in its nature. But then so was your previous statement.. As the old adage goes. If the glove fits wear it...

I can't believe people are still using general examples for arguments. Reading some posts in this thread really exposes the ignorance that exists on ATS.

You can't use SOME examples to answer the questions for ALL.

Just because SOME people are evil and violent, doesn't mean ALL are.

Just because SOME people torture animals and people, doesn't mean EVERYBODY would.

This is basic logic that some of you just can't seem to grasp.

Hunting for food does not equate to violence or evil, what about ancient tribal cultures that pay respect and appreciate all living things and creatures, even if they must consume them?

The premise of this thread is that humans are not NATURALLY evil, that if they are indeed evil, it is layered on with CONDITIONING. And you cannot pass evil on as if its encoded in our DNA.

Is it any coincidence when we take looks at those who are serial killers, murderers, rapists, etc... that they usually have a past of violence, child abuse, sexual abuse, molestation?

I raise a question to level headed members, if a child is born into a loving community where compassion, respect, principles, and integrity are the pillars of culture, would that child grow up to eventually be evil?

Originally posted by eLPresidente
I can't believe people are still using general examples for arguments. Reading some posts in this thread really exposes the ignorance that exists on ATS.

Eh, show me a forum online that doesn't screw up basic logic.

Hunting for food does not equate to violence or evil, what about ancient tribal cultures that pay respect and appreciate all living things and creatures, even if they must consume them?

You're correct. They respect and appreciate what they kill and eat. It's not violence.

The premise of this thread is that humans are not NATURALLY evil, that if they are indeed evil, it is layered on with CONDITIONING. And you cannot pass evil on as if its encoded in our DNA.

It really depends on a few things. One would be how we are defining "nature". Some view everything as being a part of "nature"...if it's not absolute, then it depends on where one arbitrarily excludes certain things from nature.

You can pass on higher or lower propensities for aggressive genes which may be turned on or not at the epigenetic level depending on a variety of factors before, during, or after birth.

Is it any coincidence when we take looks at those who are serial killers, murderers, rapists, etc... that they usually have a past of violence, child abuse, sexual abuse, molestation?

Usually is the key word, and I'm not entirely sure that's even correct. How many have at least one of these in their history, yet do not become one of those? Is there truly a higher percentage in the control vs those who end up serial killers, murderers, rapists, etc...I posit it may be our need to see people as inherently "good" that keeps us digging for something within the individuals life experiences to pinpoint it on.

I raise a question to level headed members, if a child is born into a loving community where compassion, respect, principles, and integrity are the pillars of culture, would that child grow up to eventually be evil?

Remember that key word above? Usually...remember what you said about the absolutes?? So how would you expect someone to reasonably answer this one? The question nearly indicates hypocrisy.

Yet an additional layer, define, "evil". It really depends now, doesn't it? By most people's standards, I would say likely not, but maybe so. It's still possible.

How can one know what evil and corruption is if one does not have an example to follow?


I think we need to review the studies presented in this thread.

reply to post by eLPresidente


I think the study presented in the OP has holes in heir reasoning, and the article which quotes it has a biased agenda.

I'm too meh to go through it all.

Sorry.

Originally posted by moniesisfun
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

I think the study presented in the OP has holes in heir reasoning, and the article which quotes it has a biased agenda.

I'm too meh to go through it all.

Sorry.

You thought the seville statement was meh? A scientific statement summarized after studies were done and peer reviewed/agreed by experts around the world?

If all it takes to have an assumption but for it to be ok to not review information presented, is 'meh' then life would be too easy.

From what I saw, there is at least the study in the OP, there is the seville statement, and a book posted by an ATS member which is required reading in American military training.

Originally posted by moniesisfun
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

I think the study presented in the OP has holes in heir reasoning, and the article which quotes it has a biased agenda.

I'm too meh to go through it all.

Sorry.

So a per reviewed scientific paper in in Nature Journal has a biased agenda..? Science does not have biased agendas. People do....! and your too 'meh' to to argue your point defining the holes in this scientific paper.. Maybe you should get a job as a scientist...

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by moniesisfun
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

I think the study presented in the OP has holes in heir reasoning, and the article which quotes it has a biased agenda.

I'm too meh to go through it all.

Sorry.

So a per reviewed scientific paper in in Nature Journal has a biased agenda..?

Did I say that? No, I didn't. Your reading comprehension skills need some work.

Science does not have biased agendas. People do....! and your too 'meh' to to argue your point defining the holes in this scientific paper.. Maybe you should get a job as a scientist...

Dude, it was an article written by an individual. It wasn't "science" it was bias.

Yes, many peer reviewed scientific papers have bias. I can't believe you are naive enough to suggest this isn't possible. Most of these studies which have been coming out in the last decade or so are full of rubbish conclusions, derived from poor methodologies.

I was far too "meh" last night. It wasn't worth my time, and I was tired. Why the hell are you assuming so much?

Two general conclusions may be drawn from the present study. Within the constraints of its subject population and methodology, it was found that (a) referee evaluations may be dramatically influenced by such factors as experimental outcome, and (b) inter-referee agreement may be extremely low on factors relating to manuscript evaluation. What are the implications of these findings? The answer to that question is neither simple nor straightforward. First, how should we deal with the apparent prejudice against "negative" or disconfirming results? I have argued elsewhere that this bias may be one of the most pernicious and counterproductive elements in the social sciences (Mahoney, 1976). One possible solution might be to ask referees to evaluate the relevance and methodology of an experiment without seeing either its results or their interpretation. While this might be a dramatic improvement, it raises other evaluative problems. How does one deal with the fact that referees may show very little agreement on these topics? Training them might produce better consensus, but consensus is not necessarily unprejudiced. Referees might achieve perfect agreement by simply sharing the same ideological or methodological biases.

Link

The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers.[31] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[32][33] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[34][35][36] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,[37] and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[38] Experts have also argued that invited papers are more valuable to scientific research because papers that undergo the conventional system of peer review may not necessarily feature findings that are actually important.

Allegations of bias and suppression

reply to post by moniesisfun


and how do you know the article was biased.. I trust you have read the paper or the abstract to come to this conclusion. Unless you are forming your opinion from someone else's opinion of something and stating it as fact...:

reply to post by purplemer


I would really like to believe that. Everything seems to point the other direction, including our entire history as a civilization and as a species.

The interesting question is... where did our empathy come from? How did that that come about in a world of dog eat dog?

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird

Its like raising dogs to fight

...

But the ones you see who fight in the dog pits are trained to do that,

Yo Michael Vick, I didn't know you were a member of ATS.