Why Are Humans Violent?
From the crises in the Middle East to mass shootings in U.S. schools to the reckless striving for wealth and world domination, there is one overarching theme that almost never gets media coveragethe sense of insignificance that drives destructive acts. As a depth psychologist with many years of experience, I can say emphatically that the sense of being crushed, humiliated and existentially unimportant are the main factors behind so much that we call psychopathology.
Why would it not follow that the same factors are at play in social and cultural upheavals? The emerging science of terror management theory shows convincingly that when people feel unimportant they equate those feelings with dyingand they will do everything they can, including becoming extreme and destructive themselves to avoid that feeling.
The sense of insignificance and death anxiety have been shown to play a key role in everything from terrorism to mass shootings to extremist religious and political ideologies to obsessions with materialism and wealth. Just about all that is violent and corrupt in our world seems connected to it.
http://www.alternet.org/visions/why-are-humans-violent-psychological-reason-we-hurt-each-other?page=0%2C1&akid=12084.239391.FYT0uv&rd=1&src=newsletter1013985&t=3&paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark
Tags
Who is online
471 visitors
Darwinian origins
Cute, I meant his theories on evolution, survival of the fittest, changing species based on changing environment,etcbeing a basis for cultural violence rather than he being personally responsible but I am sure you knew that
I needed a good laugh this morning thanks for providing it
Robert,
Spot on with Darwin. Violence is in our DNA. We are programed for it. Our nearest genetic cousin, the Chimpanzee, is the only other animal on earth that commits premeditated murder. They probably have an ego and they do have wants.... mates, power within the family group, food supply... so they are no different than us.
Step back and watch them, and you get a better idea of where it comes from in us. Now supposedly, we have higher thinking than they do. I am not always sure of that. I think that our wants override an logical thinking in many people.
I don't think humans are born violent, I think somehow along the way they are taught violence or have to resort to violence for survival. Who really knows for sure? Great article amb!! Very thought provoking!!
I think that's probably true. In fact IMO a lot of what is currently "maladaptive" behaviour comes from a time in the past when it actually was appropriate. And for some reason nature has us programmed so that change can be slow in coming.
For example, some extremely neurotic adults, who exhibit behaviours that are quite "mal-adaptive". While it often seems strange that they exhibit these behaviours, often they were actually quite positively adaptive in the past- - a way of surviving as a young child in a highly dysfunctional family.
That child whose behaviours were a good thing that ensured survival, a way of coping in that horrendous family then grows up. No longer living with that family, the individual still exhibits those atavistic* behaviours.
So an individual may still exhibit behaviours from early on in his life-- behaviours specific to her situation. However, IMO, this sort of phenomenon may exist in entire species as well. Not specific to a particular individual's past, but rather to the more distant past of the entire species**.
One example that comes to mind-- the current "Obesity Epidemic". One major cause is the overconsumption of foods that cause weight gain. Specifically, two classes of foods-- fats and sweets. There is a theory that this behaviour was actually quite adaptive in the past, when the threat of famine was very real, and very widespread. So we were biologically programmed to like carbs (for quick energy) and fats (to store energy between famines).
Now of course this craving for sweets and fats is quite maladaptive (at least in parts of the word where extended famine is rare if not non-existent).
Which brings up that pesky little notion of "free will". Currently, the "politically correct" idea that seems to be widely present (and growing in popularity amongst the unenlightened masses) is that we have no free will. That our lives are totally controlled by forces beyond our control.
Always a bit of an incorrigible rebel, an iconoclastic disruptor of the status quo, my own opinion is that that is total hogwash-- believed by the unenlightened, a notion advanced by political demagogues to incite hatred of one group or another (to advance their own nefarious personal agenda, whatever it might be). My view is that we do in fact have free will. We do have the potential to transcend the spiritually unevolved behaviours of the masses.
Whether or not any given individual chooses to use it..is a matter of choice.
________________________________
* I like to occasionally throw in a big word or two. In most cases I haven't the slightest idea what these words mean- it is merely a futile attempt to impress people with how erudite I actually am. (In addition, its great fun to occasionally split infinitives-- IMO its a tad pompous, but seems to make what the writer says seem important
).
** A confession to any religious fundamentalist crazies who may be out there: yes, I do believe The Theory of Evolution is a proven fact.
Heh
Are you sure? I believe that while they do enhance the burning of fat, they are actually not fat soluble?
I could be wrong, but I've always thought that the best sources of flavonoids were relatively low fat fruits and vegetables...?
Great subject and discussion Ambivalent.
Like most so far, I too think violence is built into human DNA and that's not all a bad thing. Mankind needs bit of innate aggression to keep moving forward as a species.
That being said I think mother nature is taking a second look at just how much built in violence we need. Did anyone else notice the reports that just came out pointing to a possible correlation between a gradual lowering of Testosterone in our species and the rise of our civilization?
"Testosterone level decrease led to humans being nicer and more civilized"
We're still a young species and still maturing so perhaps our great, great, greats will do better than we cantankerous 3 year old's.
I find it a good sign for mankind's future that there are Way Fewer Noe-Cons, (rabid for war any time, any where), than the vast number of Americans who are only willing to get into a fight for a very good reason. (a little snark
IMO, when young children develop behaviours that are maladaptive later in life-- there's a reason. Namely, those behaviours are actually valuable adaptive behaviours to young children when they are living in dysfunctional (even violent) families. And while inner peace and tranquility are not totally possible within those families-- the young child develops those behaviours that move them at least slightly in that direction, that shield them somewhat.
The problem may be that for whatever reason, nature has programmed us so that when circumstances change for the better-- the behaviour that was quite functional in a previous adverse environment does not change when the environment changes (or changes slowly).
Yes. I think we do want that. But I think that we are not yet evolved enough as a species to always make wise choices.
(One theory suggests that when we do evolve to that level, we will no longer live on earth in our present form, but rather move to a higher spiritual plane that transcends the illusion of the physical universe- beyond Maya -- beyond the illusion of space and time.
No problem! Heck-- I used to be an optimist myself. (In fact I was quite deeply attached to that orientation).
Indeed Perrie, indeed. I have thought for the past 20 years about this, my conclusion, probably 85% or more of our behviour is gene based.
Of course, it is easy to use that as an excuse. But that is more deterministic than I wish to be. It is not an easy exercise to reconcile who we are with what we wish to be.
I am NOT a Richard Dawkins fan.
If you don't consider the % ages involved you are painting all men with the same broad brush ... not a good practice to reject an entire group based on the actions of a few .
Try reading my entire comment next time ... or do you not do "if" statements? I notice you do your own ifs ...