The Myth of Increasing Violence

[denuseri]

I dont think that the validity of such a graph is very far at all from how people were back then based on the evidence Ive seen during my own reaserch.

The theory is looking at human group behavioral trends in general over a long period of time, as opposed to giving focus on individual actions.

In other words the focus is on the entire forrest, not a few tress here and there.

Taking things out of that context to focus on specific areas becuase one loves the new age ideal of peacful primitive societiy being preferable to modern scoiety as somthing to be sought after (which history shows us to be way off the mark) will of course make one think that the pattern isnt there, even if its a spurious coorelation.

Its like the difference between making an argument based on looking at the behavior of an individual cell in the body thats been attacked by a virus instead of looking at the overall responce of the entire immune system over the life span of an organism's homeostatic proccess.

[Thorne]

Taking things out of that context to focus on specific areas becuase one loves the new age ideal of peacful primitive societiy being preferable to modern scoiety as somthing to be sought after (which history shows us to be way off the mark) will of course make one think that the pattern isnt there, even if its a spurious coorelation.

There is SOME validity to this kind of thinking, though. In small groups the more primitive societies did tend to be more peaceful amongst themselves. Interpersonal relationships within the tribe tended to be polite and non-violent. So there is something to say for the peaceful primitives. Of course, when you went outside the tribe all bets were off. Intertribal conflicts were common, and brutal. Not so peaceful there.

What I think we see in the development of civilization is, to some extent, an expanding of the concept of tribe. Our tribe is larger now, and in some respects can be considered to be world wide. It's hard to think of the Chinese as the enemy when you can have real-time, head-to-head conversations with Chinese people who are just like you!

On the other hand, interpersonal violence becomes more common, to an extent. Perhaps it's just a function of population: a certain percentage of people are going to lack the empathy which restricts most people from performing criminal acts, so a larger population means a greater number of criminals overall.

Just my thoughts, though. This is way outside my field.

[thir]

There is SOME validity to this kind of thinking, though. In small groups the more primitive societies did tend to be more peaceful amongst themselves. Interpersonal relationships within the tribe tended to be polite and non-violent. So there is something to say for the peaceful primitives. Of course, when you went outside the tribe all bets were off. Intertribal conflicts were common, and brutal. Not so peaceful there.

How do we know this?

Theoretically I find the idea that people behave differently outside their own clan or tribe very likely, but the question is different in what way?

Some may well have had conflicts, as you say, but there'd have to be a reason, and are we not talking early days with lots of space and food? I have such trouble with this, because we keep hearing of these enormous areas with practically no people, so where is the cause for friction?

Secondly, for instance the eskimoes never had wars that I know of - none of them. I think some of the indian tribes were more warlike than others, but mainly skirmises? And some tribes had these meeting every 7. year or something like that and debated stuff, didn't they?

What I am trying to say here is that I can see the possibility very well, but by no means any universal rule.

What I think we see in the development of civilization is, to some extent, an expanding of the concept of tribe. Our tribe is larger now, and in some respects can be considered to be world wide. It's hard to think of the Chinese as the enemy when you can have real-time, head-to-head conversations with Chinese people who are just like you!

What about people who are not like us?

On the other hand, interpersonal violence becomes more common, to an extent. Perhaps it's just a function of population: a certain percentage of people are going to lack the empathy which restricts most people from performing criminal acts, so a larger population means a greater number of criminals overall.

I think the instincts for getting along and co-operation functions with a certain number and/or at a certain close distance, and when you are beyond that, you need something extra to bring them out. For instance an emergency, which often awakens the work-together feeling or a feeling of closeness, of being in the same boat.

It doesn't always have to be so much. For instance I was once on a ferry that got stuck in the ice, and it took like 5 hours to get unstuck and complete a journey of normally about 20-30 minutes. Afte a while a lot of people sat on the floor sharing tea or coffee, or playing cards, or just talking - a scenery that would have been unthinkable without the small emergency.

Just my thoughts, though. This is way outside my field.

Outside most people's field. Doesn't mean you cannot have an idea :-)

[thir]

I dont think that the validity of such a graph is very far at all from how people were back then based on the evidence Ive seen during my own reaserch.

As you say, that is a matter of belief, not fact. But when you 'cook' the graf to suit your purposes it becomes worse than useles, it becomes manipulation.

The theory is looking at human group behavioral trends in general over a long period of time, as opposed to giving focus on individual actions.

But this graf it a sort of individual action in that it takes a few of the H-Gs out and look at them, a very select few, insted of them all.

In other words the focus is on the entire forrest, not a few tress here and there.

My point exactly. The graf - and the whole theory - looks at things here and there, with no apparent coherence. To be valid it should be using a scentific method which would be to choose some parameters in 'everybody' - meaning the whole forrest of societies or as many as possible. And I mean societies from sufficiently recent times for there to be a reasonable amount of data to compare.

Taking things out of that context to focus on specific areas becuase one loves the new age ideal of peacful primitive societiy being preferable to modern scoiety as somthing to be sought after

Well, not being a new ager I cannot really comment of that part of it, but for the rest, what I am missing in the whole thing is exactly for SP to Not take things out of context as he is clearly doing in that graf! Tell me Denuseri, do you think it ok only to choose violent tribes of today, when there are actually more that are not violent? What about the rest of the forrest?

I mean, the man is postulating that the H-Gs were living in such a blood bath that it surpasses anything and everything that later civilazations with wars and crimes and what not could and did throw at each other! And with zero explanation too!

It is not about what I would want, or what I think the past was like. It is about that graf misrepresentating excisting tribes. In order for this whole theory to make sense, SP must prove that things were more violent in the past (any past, really) than they are today, and he is not doing that, because of his false graf but also because he completely avoids defining what is meant by violence, which leaves him free to take examples of some ways and avoid others as he chooses. Which means he can 'prove' just about anything!

(which history shows us to be way off the mark) will of course make one think that the pattern isnt there, even if its a spurious coorelation.

What does history show us? A number of more violent and less violent societies (whatever we mean by that term) after each other, and at the same time all over the globe.
To prove less violence would be a superhuman job, and would demand first of all that one defines what it is one is reseraching.

Its like the difference between making an argument based on looking at the behavior of an individual cell in the body thats been attacked by a virus instead of looking at the overall responce of the entire immune system over the life span of an organism's homeostatic proccess.

Which is what he is doing, taking a couple of cells here and a couple of cells here - those, and only those, that suit his purpose.

[denuseri]

As you say, that is a matter of belief, not fact. But when you 'cook' the graf to suit your purposes it becomes worse than useles, it becomes manipulation.

Which is exactly what the new agers did by onl;y looking at isolated modern primatives of their own choosing. Who are not violent with outsiders anymore becuase of overwhelming threat of outside intervention or they simply live in an area thats too remote for interaction on any large scale.

But this graf it a sort of individual action in that it takes a few of the H-Gs out and look at them, a very select few, insted of them all.

You mean he used a few as examples in his presentation, just like anyone would do, just becuase he doesnt mention all the others by name doesnt mean they were not examined.



My point exactly. The graf - and the whole theory - looks at things here and there, with no apparent coherence. To be valid it should be using a scentific method which would be to choose some parameters in 'everybody' - meaning the whole forrest of societies or as many as possible. And I mean societies from sufficiently recent times for there to be a reasonable amount of data to compare.

Shrugs...Apparently what you consider to be reasonable and what other anthroplogists and related disiplinarians consider to be reasonable is different. We both watched the same presentation of his theory and apparently have completely different views on it.



I mean, the man is postulating that the H-Gs were living in such a blood bath that it surpasses anything and everything that later civilazations with wars and crimes and what not could and did throw at each other! And with zero explanation too!

All he really was saying is that in the age when primitive societies were predominant the likely hood of having a short life and dieing from violence was greater than it is today and that the over all data points to a trend that sugests that with more modernization that likely hood is actually by far decreased compared to what I call the "new agers" would like us to think.

It is not about what I would want, or what I think the past was like. It is about that graf misrepresentating excisting tribes. In order for this whole theory to make sense, SP must prove that things were more violent in the past (any past, really) than they are today, and he is not doing that, because of his false graf but also because he completely avoids defining what is meant by violence, which leaves him free to take examples of some ways and avoid others as he chooses. Which means he can 'prove' just about anything!

Everything he was saying seems to match up just fine with the data Ive seen on the subject. In fact the only people I have found trying to distort things were the new ager crowd.



What does history show us? A number of more violent and less violent societies (whatever we mean by that term) after each other, and at the same time all over the globe.
To prove less violence would be a superhuman job, and would demand first of all that one defines what it is one is reseraching.

Well thankfully science doesnt have to be restricted to any one persons demands upon it.
Especially now when cross disiplinarian reaserch has finally seen the fruit of its labors coming into focus.


Which is what he is doing, taking a couple of cells here and a couple of cells here - those, and only those, that suit his purpose.

Shrugs...again I didnt see that, what I saw was him using a couple examples for the purposes of his presentation as opposed to dragging on and on about data sets as one would do for a thesis. He was making a short presentation (a summary) of his findings, not a detailed blow by blow examination of every little detail.


If you feel so strongy about it why not write him a letter or publish a peer reviewed article that disproves his assertions?

[thir]

Shrugs...again I didnt see that, what I saw was him using a couple examples for the purposes of his presentation as opposed to dragging on and on about data sets as one would do for a thesis. He was making a short presentation (a summary) of his findings, not a detailed blow by blow examination of every little detail.

If you cannot see the difference between examples being representative for the whole group or not, then there is nothing more I can say.

If you feel so strongy about it why not write him a letter or publish a peer reviewed article that disproves his assertions?

I am quite content to discuss things here.

The reason I feel strongly about is, I guess, that I fear that the idea of less violent and more 'civilised' societies coming about automatically is not true, but that such an idea will stop people working for peace and tolerance.

I do not believe that such comes by itself. I think it has been courageous, compassionate and clear thinking people who have dared work for their ideals in the face of bad odds, often putting their lives in danger because of it.

[denuseri]

If you cannot see the difference between examples being representative for the whole group or not, then there is nothing more I can say.

Blinks...I believe I was sayng that one uses examples for the sake of expediency becuase they were representitive of what one's overall findings were. Why continously try to take what Im saying out of context and spin it thir?


I am quite content to discuss things here.

The reason I feel strongly about is, I guess, that I fear that the idea of less violent and more 'civilised' societies coming about automatically is not true, (yet a statistical analysis of history sugests otherwise, though no one said anything at all about anything being "automatic") but that such an idea will stop people working for peace and tolerance. I hardely see why coming to a better understanding of human behavior in large group settings should do that.

I do not believe that such comes by itself. I think it has been courageous, compassionate and clear thinking people who have dared work for their ideals in the face of bad odds, often putting their lives in danger because of it.

You seem to be having dificulty seperating romatic ideals from clinical observations conserning group behavior models while completely misinterpeting anything I say about the subject.

I mentioned at no time what so ever anything about individual human efforts being diminished. Nor did I even remoely suggest that they were unnessesary. Quite the contrary by definition in fact, since groups are composed of "individuals" and considering how human group behaviors are modeled on dominance hierarchies...some individual behaviors become all the more important in influencing the group.

That kind of out non-contextual thinking reminds me of how some people were so threatened by the idea of the earth going around the sun in the middle ages.

[thir]

Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
If you cannot see the difference between examples being representative for the whole group or not, then there is nothing more I can say.

Blinks...I believe I was sayng that one uses examples for the sake of expediency becuase they were representitive of what one's overall findings were. Why continously try to take what Im saying out of context and spin it thir?

A discussion of whether the chosen tribes in the first graf - which everything is based on - are representative or not is hardly to take it out of context! It is a most factual criticism of the validity of his starting point.

Would you like to discuss this point? Because that is what I have been trying to do for quite a while now.

t

The reason I feel strongly about is, I guess, that I fear that the idea of less violent and more 'civilised' societies coming about automatically is not true,

D

(yet a statistical analysis of history sugests otherwise, though no one said anything at all about anything being "automatic")

So, do you believe it is automatic or not? I am in doubt here.

t but that such an idea will stop people working for peace and tolerance.
d I hardely see why coming to a better understanding of human behavior in large group settings should do that.

As I have read you, it goes like this: when times get worse, violence gets worse, when times get better, violence goes down. Is that correct?

I do not believe that such comes by itself. I think it has been courageous, compassionate and clear thinking people who have dared work for their ideals in the face of bad odds, often putting their lives in danger because of it.

You seem to be having dificulty seperating romatic ideals from clinical observations conserning group behavior models

Ok, let's here more about that. I have studied some about group psychology in earlier days, and I would be interested to hear about how it pertains to increasing and decreasing of violence through the ages.

while completely misinterpeting anything I say about the subject.

If so, it is unententional.

I mentioned at no time what so ever anything about individual human efforts being diminished. Nor did I even remoely suggest that they were unnessesary. Quite the contrary by definition in fact, since groups are composed of "individuals" and considering how human group behaviors are modeled on dominance hierarchies...some individual behaviors become all the more important in influencing the group.

This is getting really interesting. As earlier requested,can we hear more about that?

That kind of out non-contextual thinking reminds me of how some people were so threatened by the idea of the earth going around the sun in the middle ages.