Re: Origins of Human Violence

"Passer By" <sender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eh0fhl$2erg$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"ta" <padlrnc@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

How did violence and aggression evolve in human beings, and what
evidence would you supply to support your position?

Did the earliest humans employ violence against one another, or was
the behaviour learned out of necessity?


It was likely born out of the pressures of sexual selection. Women
tend to be more attractive to aggressive men.

Or, more generally, typical women tends to be more attracted to typical
males.

Surprise, surprise! ;-)

The aggression should

[if to have the best chance of being adaptive]


be directed toward other "tribes," but they should be compassionate to
there wife and children.

[paragraph split by me, Peter]

Women also tend to become pregnant more often
from any given act of rape vs any give act of consensual sex, thus
there are "genes" for rape in humans.

Are you sure?

Your philosophical perception of rape might be too out of (or may never have
been in) focus.

If so, then maybe a few concEPTual lenses could correct for this
philosophical flaw. :-)

Here goes:

The character of the evolutionary patterning that led to sexual, or
sexualized, aggression (such as what e.g. rape exemplifies) is most
definitely understandable in an EPT way;
That is, it is approximately understandable by help of the concEPT of
"ambiadvantageously evolved" traits, or, ambiadvantageously evolved
veritable "actention selecting systems" incorporating - amongst much else
but very instructively - various endorphins. ["Endorphins" was here used in
place of opioids.]

AEVASIVE is (to me) an allusively characterizing tool for heuristic thought,
or a system of lenses for by which to with perversely pert poignancy and
pretentious omniscience overview, mainly human brain
functions/behaviors/personalities/cultures and the intrinsic and extrinsic
or environmental [that's an inevitable dichotomy] "pressures" behind the
human phenotype.

I use "pressures" mainly but not only in the sense of
forces/factors/features specific to phylogeny (or patterns of interactions
that most directly explains the emergence of phenotypes) since there is a
sense in which evolutionary (as in complexifying) pressures can also be seen
to have caused quantum-cosmological evolution (as if in a condensation-style
the emergence of increasingly complex patterns of energy and, thereof, of
matter).

For an ultimately general expression using involving this this metaphorical
word (i.e. pressures), there is the possibility of thinking in terms of the
"evolutionary pressure (or patterning) totality".

By thinking about this totality from ontop an explanatory
platform-terminology, it is possible to pragmatically - and always from a
generically individual perspective - perceive (or philosophically portion
into ephemeral cognitive existence) two "topmost" categories of force-like
"evolution producing tendencies":

One that is typically directly, primarily, and predominantly, pattern
producing/adding and constructively evolution furthering (rather than
devolution furthering) forces and factorial "EPT features", and the other
that is fundamentally secondary and negative (destructive and primarily
'naturally pruning').

(If seen as potentials, both positive and negative evolutionary pressures
can also be thought of as "given by the not quite infinite features of this
universe's configuration space".)

More specifically, AEVASIVE is a concEPTual tool for grasping that the
aspect of our genotype that underlies rape and many more (or even *less*)
peaceful preoccupations.

AEVASIVE acronymically implies the in the phylogeny of fauna obviously
significantly frequent overlap between 1. within individual lifetimes
sometimes taken phylogenetic opportunities, and 2. with significant
frequency ended up in SHITS-type ordeals (or ditto adversities) that became
"conditioned-in" and as if converted (via plasticities in the functioning
and formation of neural signal pathways) into "chronically unconsciously
reverberating circuits, effecting symptoms" (or CURSES).

Here is what I mean by the concEPT that stands for what CURSES (-type
memories or imprints) are conditioned-in by:

SHITS are lethal-or-not predicaments of (most of all) mobile neuromuscular
individuals.

SHITS covers situations (or stressors or "environmental sources of sensory
motivational stimulation") that are from slowly and trivially, to rapidly
and dramatically, impacting but that in any case are as if imploring of
"synaptic hibernation" (or "synaptic hibernation imploring");
In other words, SHITS are predicaments such that if they are to be survived
require inhibitory self-regulatory preemption or deactivation of distress or
of flight-fight type defenses (or of "sympathetic nervous system
reactivity").

SHITS are predicaments that (hence) are either lethaly or not lethaly
*"traumatizing"* since if they would be consciously processed and paid
direct or immediate defensive 'actention' to, this processing actending (or
pain/stressful preoccupation or focus of actention) would be done in a
*self-defeating* fashion.
In other words, SHITS does by definition stand for predicaments that if not
neurologically suppressed will - no excEPTions! ;-) - give rise to
overwhelming distress or a maladaptive distractedness (by distracting from
the taking of direct or indirect lifetime opportunities to reproduce).

Most minds around here a too faint-hearted to fathom that they evolved to
have a uniquely huge capacity and tendency to "be AEVASIVE". The closest
some I have gotten to understand, in an EPT way, What Is going on, has come
as a result of me proposition the same things but with help of the notion of
that there is are commonly occurring ordeals calls for an ability to
behaviorally (and actentionally) "freeze".

What it seems that people can't take in is the significance of that some
situations demands a situation-specific circumscription of consciousness,
and a reactivity preempting state involving a correspondingly specific
neurophysiological inhibition; that is NOT an effect of neural/hormonal
inhibition as general, or generally behavior blocking and metabolsims
muting, as what is the conventional meaning of "hibernation" (or by
"aestivation", for this matter).

Occasionally, men may have to
defended themselves from wild animals, but this was probably less
common than man-to-man combat. Again along the lines of sexual
selection men would hunt very large animals mostly to impress women
(small game gives more steady energy supply, but isn't as impressive).

As John Edser might say:

"It is important to be aware the phylogenetic fact that sexual selection is
both secondary to and nested within the process of natural selection." [N.B.
This was not an actual quote!]

However, unfortunately for me, John does also refuse to accEPT (and of
course inEPTly so) that Darwinian selection pressures can very well be seen
to have operated on NOT JUST ALREADY FERTILE individuals, but on all
potentially reproductively viable individual members of ancestral
populations.


Peter


.