# Phyc theory on fighting VS self defence



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

The following is a segment of a theory i am working on.  these are more like notes then a working thesis.  as a martial arts community we seem to go round in circles about fighting and self defense.  i am looking for some input and ideas on my thoughts.  where are the holes?  the overall theory is not about fighting VS self defense but it may help define some concepts.  think of this as a crowd/ open source theory experiment.



_*“Primal hierarchy”*
Originally as a species we used the same dominance hierarchy as other primates, based on violence.

*“Modern hierarchy”*
As we evolved and society modernized we developed a new hierarchy based on a value system.

We are born with an intuitive knowledge of the primal hierarchy it is encoded within our DNA.  Modern hierarchy however is a learned behavior (at least for the present).

Everyday society functions with these two models working in tandem, overlapping and weaving in and out of each other._


Dominance hierarchy - Wikipedia

Dominance Hierarchies

_When certain individuals and groups fail to succeed at the value based hierarchy they will revert back to the violence based model. Individuals under emotional stress may also revert back to the violence model.

All male perpetrated interpersonal violence is an expression of the Primal dominance hierarchy.

Criminals function under this model. This means their values, morals and sense of right and wrong are different than the rest of society. Criminals have a hard time functioning on the outside of prison. They do not know how to succeed in the value based model. They say they find the outside world scary. Prison reinforces the Primal hierarchy through like minded groupings.

Abject poverty does not create crime. Relative poverty does. The Individual becomes aware of his low social position within the hierarchy.

Human behavior is influenced by the dominance hierarchy. When these behaviors are expressed in a negative way we call that a Volatile interaction._

*Volatile Interaction*
_When two or more bodies that interact have a potential for violence.


Using chemical definitions, we can say bodies that are subject to initiate violence (i.e. are functioning within the Primal model) are “unstable”. Bodies that are unlikely to initiate violence (functioning under the modern model) are a catalyst.

A volatile interaction does not always lead to a combative event.  this is where de-escalation works._

_When two bodies that are “unstable” interact this interaction is called a_ *Dominance exchange.*

_When one body is “unstable” and the other is a “catalyst” we call this an_ *Assault.*


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> All male perpetrated interpersonal violence is an expression of the Primal dominance hierarchy.


Here's my first question - in the terms of your hierarchy theory, what is inherently different about male-initiated violence, versus female-initiated violence.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2017)

I do not believe you can describe criminals as you do.  Your description makes it seem almost as if they are a different species, whose behavior can be predicted in the same way certain species of birds are known to migrate.  I do not believe that is accurate.

Many criminals operate well on both sides of the law.  Not all are career.  Many are occasional and only under certain circumstances or when presented with certain opportunity.  Many are otherwise positively functional members of society.

I think your description there is overly simplified.  Human motivations and behavior is much more complex than that.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Here's my first question - in the terms of your hierarchy theory, what is inherently different about male-initiated violence, versus female-initiated violence.


really good question.  something that i will have to look more into to be honest.  but the dominance hierarchy has a presupposition that it is the male who typically "climbs" the ladder and that the female is a moderator of the hierarchy.  that at least is the classical version.  i am trying to apply this to violence so i havnt worked out the female side yet.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I do not believe you can describe criminals as you do.  Your description makes it seem almost as if they are a different species, whose behavior can be predicted in the same way certain species of birds are known to migrate.  I do not believe that is accurate.
> 
> Many criminals operate well on both sides of the law.  Not all are career.  Many are occasional and only under certain circumstances or when presented with certain opportunity.  Many are otherwise positively functional members of society.
> 
> I think your description there is overly simplified.  Human motivations and behavior is much more complex than that.


something for me to think about , thanks.. but i am not trying to describe criminal activity i am only interested in interpersonal violence.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

it is known that females actually commit more interpersonal violence then the men in relationships. but it is the men that have the strength disparity to do more damage so you usually only see stats on men on women violence.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> really good question.  something that i will have to look more into to be honest.  but the dominance hierarchy has a presupposition that it is the male who typically "climbs" the ladder and that the female is a moderator of the hierarchy.  that at least is the classical version.  i am trying to apply this to violence so i havnt worked out the female side yet.


Fair enough.  I was responding to statement of criminals having a hard time operating outside of prison, operating under certain rules,etc.  since it was part of your statements I felt it was worth commenting on.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I do not believe you can describe criminals as you do.  Your description makes it seem almost as if they are a different species, whose behavior can be predicted in the same way certain species of birds are known to migrate.  I do not believe that is accurate.



while my post may note express it fully. this is not something new and experts do in fact describe criminals this way.

edit:   we posted at the same time..  you may be correct about post - prison behavior.  again it is just a theory.


----------



## marques (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> _*“Primal hierarchy”*
> Originally as a species we used the same dominance hierarchy as other primates, based on violence.
> 
> *“Modern hierarchy”*
> As we evolved and society modernized we developed a new hierarchy based on a value system._


First thoughts:

We still use primal hierarchy. More clearly among young males. Among adults, we may not see physical violence as often (happily) but still there is fear and different forms of punishment.

I see the modern hierarchy based on power. Where are the values these days? Empty words... (if the value is not money or power). People with power keep inferiors quiet or delete them. Simple. 

People respect more the ones they fear than the ones they love. (Nicolau?)


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

marques said:


> First thoughts:
> 
> We still use primal hierarchy. More clearly among young males. Among adults, we may not see physical violence as often (happily) but still there is fear and different forms of punishment.
> 
> ...


good observations.  modern hierarchy based on power sounds correct.  but i think they are both based on power.   the difference is what constitutes the power?  in the primal model it is physical presence and strenght  in the modern model it  is money and social structure.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> The following is a segment of a theory i am working on.  these are more like notes then a working thesis.  as a martial arts community we seem to go round in circles about fighting and self defense.  i am looking for some input and ideas on my thoughts.  where are the holes?  the overall theory is not about fighting VS self defense but it may help define some concepts.  think of this as a crowd/ open source theory experiment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nearly all interaction between humans, particularly males, is tinged with Dominance.  It is not always expressed with violence unless definitions of "violence" become so broad as to be meaningless.  Dominance is often expressed in any way in which one participant can place himself above the other.  This ranges from IQ, income, political office (including social clubs) and any skill which can be expressed as a "sport" such as pool, boxing, or clog-dancing.  It's all ways to express Dominance.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Nearly all interaction between humans, particularly males, is tinged with Dominance.  It is not always expressed with violence unless definitions of "violence" become so broad as to be meaningless.  Dominance is often expressed in any way in which one participant can place himself above the other.  This ranges from IQ, income, political office (including social clubs) and any skill which can be expressed as a "sport" such as pool, boxing, or clog-dancing.  It's all ways to express Dominance.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



part of my thinking is that among certain socio economic groups the modern hierarchy seems to lose its influence and the primal model continues to exist.  i have more money gets trumped by "oh yeah well F U and im gonna take it away from you" and it happens in a violent manner to prove the point that im more dominant that you.


----------



## marques (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> modern hierarchy based on power sounds correct.  but i think they are both based on power.   the difference is what constitutes the power?  in the primal model it is physical presence and strenght  in the modern model it  is money and social structure.


Well, initially one could hurt a few people (enemies) and lead another bunch of people (towards food and better survival chance?). 

These days one can lead countries with millions of people or multinational companies and "hurt" competitors. Just a different scale. I still don't see much difference. 

We join the companies we think are better for our survival (or quality of life) and we vote in politicians we think are better for our survival (or quality of life). We give them power. 

Leaders are still doing what is better to keep their own leadership (and it may include giving some perks to the inferiors  ). Honestly, I don't think we evolved that much. Things look different nowadays, and are different but just to some (short) extent...


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

marques said:


> Well, initially one could hurt a few people (enemies) and lead another bunch of people (towards food and better survival chance?).
> 
> These days one can lead countries with millions of people or multinational companies and "hurt" competitors. Just a different scale. I still don't see much difference.
> 
> ...


i cant disagree with you.  but typically a dominance hierarchy does not revolve around leading people as much as mating rights with a female and the social structure that evolves around the perpetuation of the species.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> while my post may note express it fully. this is not something new and experts do in fact describe criminals this way.
> 
> edit:   we posted at the same time..  you may be correct about post - prison behavior.  again it is just a theory.


If experts do in fact describe it in this way, then I’m guessing there must be more to the story.  Perhaps it is a certain subset of hardened, repeat violent criminals who spend a large portion of their life behind bars, and may be frequently in and out of prison for largely violent behavior.

I contrast this with someone guilty of insider trading who was otherwise a good husband, good father, and member of his local Big Brothers program, or even someone guilty and serving time for a violent crime committed in the passion of the moment, who had no other violent history and had, up until then, been leading a positive and productive life in his community.

These are not all the same people, as criminals.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Many criminals operate well on both sides of the law


In the US the recidivism rate for state prisoners is 77%


Flying Crane said:


> Not all are career


Yes, not all


Flying Crane said:


> Many are occasional and only under certain circumstances or when presented with certain opportunity.


What are you basing this on? Even if that's true that means the circumstances can never present themselves again for them to be functional in society.  


Flying Crane said:


> Many are otherwise positively functional members of society.


Is there information/evidence verifying this?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2017)

Anarax said:


> In the US the recidivism rate for state prisoners is 77%
> 
> Yes, not all
> 
> ...


Read my follow-up post,#15.


----------



## jobo (Oct 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> If experts do in fact describe it in this way, then I’m guessing there must be more to the story.  Perhaps it is a certain subset of hardened, repeat violent criminals who spend a large portion of their life behind bars, and may be frequently in and out of prison for largely violent behavior.
> 
> I contrast this with someone guilty of insider trading who was otherwise a good husband, good father, and member of his local Big Brothers program, or even someone guilty and serving time for a violent crime committed in the passion of the moment, who had no other violent history and had, up until then, been leading a positive and productive life in his community.
> 
> These are not all the same people, as criminals.


  i can't see the distinction, there are two types of criminal, those who get caught and those who don't, or have good laywers or are married to an ex president . 

people taking home pads and pens from work or dropping litter or what ever are just as much criminals as those others you refers to.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Read my follow-up post,#15.



I didn't see anything in your post that really answered any of my questions. You're speculating and giving hypothetical examples of types of people. 

FYI, insider trading would fall under federal not state law, and first time offenders will most likely be given probation. 

Do you have any evidence supporting your statements?


----------



## Anarax (Oct 27, 2017)

jobo said:


> i can't see the distinction, there are two types of criminal, those who get caught and those who don't, or have good laywers or are married to an ex president .
> 
> people taking home pads and pens from work or dropping litter or what ever are just as much criminals as those others you refers to.



I agree with most of what you're saying. There is a gradient of crime severity, but I don't think how noble you are as a person should have anything to do with it. Even if you robbed someone so you could feed yourself, it's still a crime. It doesn't make your actions any more noble. You aren't imprisoned for who you are, but for what you've done.


----------



## jobo (Oct 27, 2017)

Anarax said:


> I agree with most of what you're saying. There is a gradient of crime severity, but I don't think how noble you are as a person should have anything to do with it. Even if you robbed someone so you could feed yourself, it's still a crime. It doesn't make your actions any more noble. You aren't imprisoned for who you are, but for what you've done.


not my point, rather that some people escape justice as they have money or influence or just don't get caught stealing pens from work or speeding, what severity society places on a crime, doesn't stop it from being a crime and you a criminal.

i see people who sneer , look down at muggers but break the speed limit as hypocrisy


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

i dont want to stifle the comments but the OP post is about violence not crime.  there is a difference.   
the thread is about a dominance hierarchy and how it applies to the psychology of violent behavior patterns.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2017)

Anarax said:


> I didn't see anything in your post that really answered any of my questions. You're speculating and giving hypothetical examples of types of people.
> 
> FYI, insider trading would fall under federal not state law, and first time offenders will most likely be given probation.
> 
> Do you have any evidence supporting your statements?


I am talking about who is a criminal.  Do you understand that there are different types, all of which can end up in prison at some point?  

Do you understand that even those who have a criminal background don’t genetally live every aspect of their lives as a criminal?  That they can have positive family relationships, successful careers, etc.  it depends on the person and on the level and frequency of criminal behavior that they have committed, of course.  But every person with a criminal background, even those who have served time (regardless of whether it was State or Federal), does not suddenly become unable to cope with life outside of prison.  As with most things in life, it depends on many factors.

This is pretty self-evident and should not need a peer-reviewed research article to support it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i dont want to stifle the comments but the OP post is about violence not crime.  there is a difference.
> the thread is about a dominance hierarchy and how it applies to the psychology of violent behavior patterns.


My apologies.  I wasn’t going to pursue it, but it seems there is some confusion.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

if an individual walks into a store to "relieve it" of its money, that is a crime but if during that crime the store owner refuses to hand over the cash box then the criminal will resort to push his dominance over the owner to force the situation to his will.
the theft is a crime but then there was also a confrontation and assault over dominance.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

when we look at crime against women like rape we have a psychological understanding that the major contributing factor to rape is power and dominance. however what i am saying is that the same is true for other non sexual violence and between males.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

two guys in a bar. one bumps the other ones shoulder this creates a Volatile Interaction.  now the victim (i use that word loosely) can talk his way out with de escalation, thus giving the assailant what he was really after (dominance)  or he can also assert his own dominance. this, like i used the term before is where both parties are "unstable" and a combative event happens.
both parties are trying to assert dominance ...this is not allowed by law.  they are both compliant in the act. when we apply the theory we see both parties are operating within the same Primal Dominance Hierarchy.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I am talking about who is a criminal.  Do you understand that there are different types, all of which can end up in prison at some point?
> 
> Do you understand that even those who have a criminal background don’t genetally live every aspect of their lives as a criminal?  That they can have positive family relationships, successful careers, etc.  it depends on the person and on the level and frequency of criminal behavior that they have committed, of course.  But every person with a criminal background, even those who have served time (regardless of whether it was State or Federal), does not suddenly become unable to cope with life outside of prison.  As with most things in life, it depends on many factors.
> 
> This is pretty self-evident and should not need a peer-reviewed research article to support it.



When we are talking about criminology, which is a science, then yes you should be able to find information backing up your positions.

You use terms like "perhaps" and "guessing", which is speculation. All I asked was for evidence supporting your opinions. Polls, research, statistics and yes peer reviewed articles are all valid sources.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2017)

Anarax said:


> When we are talking about criminology, which is a science, then yes you should be able to find information backing up your positions.
> 
> You use terms like "perhaps" and "guessing", which is speculation. All I asked was for evidence supporting your opinions. Polls, research, statistics and yes peer reviewed articles are all valid sources.


I have reviewed the OP and there is, so far, zero criminology in this thread.  Some statements were made without citation, the target population under discussion was not clearly defined.  

Essentially, when it comes right down to it, I am pointing out that for any of those earlier statements to have any meaning, the subject population needs to be much more specifically defined because otherwise the statements are far too broad and the definition of “criminal” can have far too much ambiguity, and right off the top of my head in about five seconds of non-rigorous thought I was able to come up with several exceptions to the statements made.

Now, Hoshin has stated that the whole criminal bit isn’t really what he is interested in so I for one am willing to not further divert the topic.  If you want to debate this further I would be happy to, but please open a new thread to do so.  Feel free to link Hoshin’s OP to the new thread if you do so, since the debate is based on what he said in that post.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> The following is a segment of a theory i am working on.  these are more like notes then a working thesis.  as a martial arts community we seem to go round in circles about fighting and self defense.  i am looking for some input and ideas on my thoughts.  where are the holes?  the overall theory is not about fighting VS self defense but it may help define some concepts.  think of this as a crowd/ open source theory experiment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Be prepared to read a lot of books from reliable sources in regards to human behavior, criminal psychology, Society behavior, Society customs and their impact on laws, mental disorders, and a tons of other books to try and piece together something.   Without it, you'll constantly run into problems where notes and assumptions crumble.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Human motivations and behavior is much more complex than that


And this is an example of understatement.  This is one of those multiple expert input matters where everyone has a piece of the puzzle.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 27, 2017)

lklawson said:


> It is not always expressed with violence unless definitions of "violence" become so broad as to be meaningless.


 I agree with this. The term violence is almost always used in a negative context which is not accurate of what violence really is.  It is almost always seen as something bad which is also not correct about the reality of violence.  

It will probably be better to use the word aggression and then categorized levels of aggression when speaking of dominance.  Posturing can be a product of dominance but it's doesn't have to be violent or even noticeable.  A simple gaze (like a mother's gaze) would be an example.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> the whole criminal bit isn’t really what he is interested in


I'm not sure if this is possible.  An action is only criminal if it's against the rules of society.  In some societies it's legal and considered a right for a man to beat his wife if he see's fit.   So while it's not a crime in that society, the behavior or the mentality of the action may still be the same in a society where it's a crime.

I do agree with you that this definitely needs to be narrowed down greatly.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Here's my first question - in the terms of your hierarchy theory, what is inherently different about male-initiated violence, versus female-initiated violence.



That has actually been studied. As an example, in cases of deadly force, when the victim is not a child (under 15 years), the female most typically attacks an intimate partner, a knife is typically used and the victim is typically under the influence of some sort of intoxicant.  Previous violence against the female by the "victim" is also typical and it usually occurs within the home.  In terms of when the victims are children the primary differences are first in method; women will typically use asphyxiation where men will use a deadly weapon, also the women will typically have fewer sentences for previous criminal activity.

In terms of overall violent acts men commit far more violence but that said not all sociologists agree that evolution is the reason.  As an example some sociologists believe that the difference lies in the gap of social equality between the sexes and that violent crime would be nearly equal between the sexes if social status was equal.

There is also on-going research in terms of the effect of toxic masculinity, especially as it relates to people of color growing up in poverty, not only in terms of violent crime but what some term the "school to prison pipe line" where, in essence, the youth sees only two paths forward in life; 

1. athletic achievement which provides a scholarship BUT the education is not the "end".  You are either good enough to have a chance at "the pros" or you don't take it.
2. the street, which all to often leads to a life of criminality and violence.

The above dynamic being caused by an attitude that undervalues education due to toxic attitudes of what is "masculine."

(can you tell my girlfriend is a dual diagnosis counselor with a social justice focus hunting for a PHD? lol  )


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure if this is possible.  An action is only criminal if it's against the rules of society.  In some societies it's legal and considered a right for a man to beat his wife if he see's fit.   So while it's not a crime in that society, the behavior or the mentality of the action may still be the same in a society where it's a crime.
> 
> I do agree with you that this definitely needs to be narrowed down greatly.



Is the mentality the same? See that would be interesting. I mean we consider beating women as unacceptable but would drinking for example as acceptable.

And we can find cultures where the reverse is true.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I do not believe you can describe criminals as you do.  Your description makes it seem almost as if they are a different species, whose behavior can be predicted in the same way certain species of birds are known to migrate.  I do not believe that is accurate.
> 
> Many criminals operate well on both sides of the law.  Not all are career.  Many are occasional and only under certain circumstances or when presented with certain opportunity.  Many are otherwise positively functional members of society.
> 
> I think your description there is overly simplified.  Human motivations and behavior is much more complex than that.




You can actually make some decent guesses when looking at a combination of poverty among a population that would suffer some degree of marginalization regardless of their socioeconomic status.  Institutional racism is a "thing" and when you compound that with generational poverty, craptastic school systems in these poverty stricken areas, disintegrating family units etc. you essentially create an environment that, for lack of a better term, encourages criminality due to issues related to toxic masculinity, social and economic status etc.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> You can actually make some decent guesses when looking at a combination of poverty among a population that would suffer some degree of marginalization regardless of their socioeconomic status.  Institutional racism is a "thing" and when you compound that with generational poverty, craptastic school systems in these poverty stricken areas, disintegrating family units etc. you essentially create an environment that, for lack of a better term, encourages criminality due to issues related to toxic masculinity, social and economic status etc.


While I agree that institutionalized racism is very real and can have very real effects on a community as a whole, that actually has nothing to do with the point I was making.

A particular population needs to be identified and defined as the one being studied.  And it was not.  No population was defined, other than an overly broad “criminal” and their ability to function outside of prison.

Even within a population marginalized and subjected to institutionalized racism, those who may engage in criminal activities can also have other positive attributes: positive family relationships, successful jobs, positive and non-criminal relationships within the community.

We cannot simplistically identify someone as a criminal and then ignore the other aspects of their lives.  Nobody is 100% criminal, all the time.  As such, we cannot make blanket statements about criminals ability or lack thereof to function outside of prison.  One person convicted of criminal behavior is not automatically the same as the next.

That is my point.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> While I agree that institutionalized racism is very real and can have very real effects on a community as a whole, that actually has nothingness to do with the point I was making.
> 
> A particular population needs to be identified and defined as the one being studied.  And it was not.  No population was defined, other than an overly broad “criminal” and their ability to function outside of prison.
> 
> ...


Well the OP may have gotten lucky, or simply not adequately described exist and on going quantitative research by people like this...
Dr. Christopher Liang | Lehigh Education

But the data is there and it's compelling enough that people like Dr. Liang are doing research in how to break the cycle that exists in these communities.  /Shrug.  My girlfriend as part of her Master's program was actually "let off the leash" so to speak to run a program that is part of his study in a largely minority middle School in an poor/underperforming school district.

Note I am not saying we identify those kids as criminal, but the circumstances they live in put them at MUCH higher risk.  My point is to say to simply give them the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best is not an option.  We need to acknowledge the higher risk and engage in preemptive interventions.  Figuring out best practices via quantitative research is a large part of Dr. Liang's study.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 27, 2017)

This thread, while well intentioned, is useless in it's current form. As has been mentioned, 'criminality' is an arbitrary thing, as what constitutes a crime varies from place to place.  If you follow every rule laid out in any given place simply because someone decided one day it shouldn't be allowed, rather than because you believe it is wrong, you have already been 'dominated', regardless of any other standard.

IE some crimes tie in, others do not. 

As per the nature of interpersonal violence and dominance, I think much of the official line is also arbitrary. Psychology isn't real science, it's mostly backroom politics. The backbone of what constitutes flaws in human psychology, ie the DSM,  isn't decided by science but rather by quorum.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> You can actually make some decent guesses when looking at a combination of poverty among a population that would suffer some degree of marginalization regardless of their socioeconomic status.  Institutional racism is a "thing" and when you compound that with generational poverty, craptastic school systems in these poverty stricken areas, disintegrating family units etc. you essentially create an environment that, for lack of a better term, encourages criminality due to issues related to toxic masculinity, social and economic status etc.




Might I ask what you disagree with... AFTER you read my follow up post which clarifies my position.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Well the OP may have gotten lucky, or simply not adequately described exist and on going quantitative research by people like this...
> Dr. Christopher Liang | Lehigh Education
> 
> But the data is there and it's compelling enough that people like Dr. Liang are doing research in how to break the cycle that exists in these communities.  /Shrug.  My girlfriend as part of her Master's program was actually "let off the leash" so to speak to run a program that is part of his study in a largely minority middle School in an poor/underperforming school district.
> ...



And as long as that is the population identified, then study and analysis can be appropriate.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

Martial D said:


> This thread, while well intentioned, is useless in it's current form. As has been mentioned, 'criminality' is an arbitrary thing, as what constitutes a crime varies from place to place.  If you follow every rule laid out in any given place simply because someone decided one day it shouldn't be allowed, rather than because you believe it is wrong, you have already been 'dominated', regardless of any other standard.
> 
> IE some crimes tie in, others do not.
> 
> As per the nature of interpersonal violence and dominance, I think much of the official line is also arbitrary. Psychology isn't real science, it's mostly backroom politics. The backbone of what constitutes flaws in human psychology, ie the DSM,  isn't decided by science but rather by quorum.



Simply because the DSM is controversial in some circles does not eliminate the fact that quantitative studies both in a social justice framework and without show that institutional racism and socioeconomic status have an impact on what a Layman would call antisocial Behavior AKA criminality. I say Layman simply because in the field of psychology antisocial Behavior has a very precise meaning.

Psychology is actually a science.  If you are a PhD in Psychology and you are doing a study it needs to be quantitative. They hate qualitative studies specifically because of what you just said, the claim that psychology is not a science.  

The problem is is that very often these quantitative studies are dismissed because their results are very inconvenient to certain ideological frameworks.  As an example on the Right there is still a lot of denial of institutional racism even though we can look at the news and see Banks paying out multimillion-dollar sometimes close to billion dollar settlement for racist lending practices.  We have study after study that shows that people of color who are arrested for the same offenses as a white person, with an identical criminal history as said white person, end up being incarcerated at far higher rates.  The same goes for discipline inside schools.

All of these things contribute to the psychological make-up of people.  These things affect them but when they're put into a psychology study its dismissed as backroom politics because some people don't want to acknowledge these facts that are proven by


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> And as long as that is the population identified, then study and analysis can be appropriate.



So it does. One of the things that kind of drives my girlfriend a little nuts is that she was first an ethnographer working in East Africa for an NGO (first MA is anthropology). That is usually qualitative in nature. Having to transition from that kind of research to the quantitative nature that is required in the psychology field was an interesting transition for her.  She loves the research a lot but whenever she proposes bringing in the ethnographer's method it gets poo-pooed because qualitative research is seen as more subjective even when you have an appropriately large data set.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Simply because the DSM is controversial in some circles does not eliminate the fact that quantitative studies both in a social justice framework and without show that institutional racism and socioeconomic status have an impact on what a Layman would call antisocial Behavior AKA criminality. I say Layman simply because in the field of psychology antisocial Behavior has a very precise meaning.
> 
> Psychology is actually a science.  If you are a PhD in Psychology and you are doing a study it needs to be quantitative. They hate qualitative studies specifically because of what you just said, the claim that psychology is not a science.
> 
> ...


Well, institutional racism is a whole other subject. Personally Ive yet to see any good data in support of it's existence. Might want to save that one for it's own thread.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Well, institutional racism is a whole other subject. Personally Ive yet to see any good data in support of it's existence. Might want to save that one for it's own thread.



I can send you some pretty solid studies PM side if you want related to incarceration rates, school discipline, lending practices, it goes across most societal lines (at least in the US, in other countries your mileage may vary).  PM only because I think that whole you are most often reasonable, not everyone is and being a topic in and of itself would create more arguments than discussion I fear..


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> So it does. One of the things that kind of drives my girlfriend a little nuts is that she was first an ethnographer working in East Africa for an NGO (first MA is anthropology). That is usually qualitative in nature. Having to transition from that kind of research to the quantitative nature that is required in the psychology field was an interesting transition for her.  She loves the research a lot but whenever she proposes bringing in the ethnographer's method it gets poo-pooed because qualitative research is seen as more subjective even when you have an appropriately large data set.


That is interesting.  I am surprised by it because anthropology and psychology are closely related  as social sciences, I would have thought there could be some amount of overlap in research methods.  Granted, not the same, but room for some overlap.  It seems to me there ought to be complimentary methods there in terms of gathering data and then analyzing it.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I can send you some pretty solid studies PM side if you want related to incarceration rates, school discipline, lending practices, it goes across most societal lines (at least in the US, in other countries your mileage may vary).  PM only because I think that whole you are most often reasonable, not everyone is and being a topic in and of itself would create more arguments than discussion I fear..


I try to be reasonable, I don't always succeed but I try.

I am aware of the discrepancies in incarceration and lending, I would imagine discipline follows a similar pattern, I just don't think racism is a factor. I can already see the direction your politics lean in, so I'm not sure a 1 on 1 would really be worthwhile for either of us lol. Best to just let this one drop.

Politics and religion are pretty much gasoline, with discussion generally acting as a match!


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> That is interesting.  I am surprised by it because anthropology and psychology are closely related  as social sciences, I would have thought there could be some amount of overlap in research methods.  Granted, not the same, but room for some overlap.  It seems to me there ought to be complimentary methods there in terms of gathering data and then analyzing it.




I was surprised by it as well for the same reasons.  And it's not to say that there aren't qualitative studies in the field of psychology it's just that such studies don't get published as much because of the nature of peer review in the field.. And when you are a PhD on the tenure track it is published or die.  

To an extent it almost sounds elitist to me. As an example my girlfriend has an MA in anthropology and experience is an ethnographer and she now has a couple Publications under her belt underneath one of her professors as a masters in Counseling psychology. But even with all that experience and training she would not be able to get an article published in a peer-reviewed journal without that phds name over her name.  So if she decides to delay her entry into a PhD program she will actually have to net work with other phds to keep publishing so that her CV keeps getting patted while she's working as a professional.  The Byzantine rules of the Ivory Tower I suppose.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

Martial D said:


> I try to be reasonable, I don't always succeed but I try.
> 
> I am aware of the discrepancies in incarceration and lending, I would imagine discipline follows a similar pattern, I just don't think racism is a factor. I can already see the direction your politics lean in, so I'm not sure a 1 on 1 would really be worthwhile for either of us lol. Best to just let this one drop.
> 
> Politics and religion are pretty much gasoline, with discussion generally acting as a match!



Well I don't see statitcally based quantitative studies as "politics" tbh.  They are facts.  I have always been a believer in "the facts should inform my Ideology, my Ideology should not inform my interpretation of facts."

This method is how I went, slowly but surely, from a very Conservative (former VP of College Republicans back in the day) to an admittedly more moderate position (because I do believe that there are times where race and poverty get confabulated.)


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I can send you some pretty solid studies PM side if you want related to incarceration rates, school discipline, lending practices, it goes across most societal lines (at least in the US, in other countries your mileage may vary).  PM only because I think that whole you are most often reasonable, not everyone is and being a topic in and of itself would create more arguments than discussion I fear..


Ahh now I see why you disagree.  /Shrug


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

thanks for some good discussion.  a lot to take in and ponder.  i will have to make a multitude of responses.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

Martial D said:


> This thread, while well intentioned, is useless in it's current form. As has been mentioned, 'criminality' is an arbitrary thing, as what constitutes a crime varies from place to place.  If you follow every rule laid out in any given place simply because someone decided one day it shouldn't be allowed, rather than because you believe it is wrong, you have already been 'dominated', regardless of any other standard.
> 
> IE some crimes tie in, others do not.
> 
> As per the nature of interpersonal violence and dominance, I think much of the official line is also arbitrary. Psychology isn't real science, it's mostly backroom politics. The backbone of what constitutes flaws in human psychology, ie the DSM,  isn't decided by science but rather by quorum.


The DSM is one tool in Psychology. The study, itself, is actually science.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree with this. The term violence is almost always used in a negative context which is not accurate of what violence really is.  It is almost always seen as something bad which is also not correct about the reality of violence.
> 
> It will probably be better to use the word aggression and then categorized levels of aggression when speaking of dominance.  Posturing can be a product of dominance but it's doesn't have to be violent or even noticeable.  A simple gaze (like a mother's gaze) would be an example.



i think i disagree with this statement.  so lets first define violence.
as per BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY:
_*violence,  *Unjust or unwarranted use of force, usually accompanied by fury, vehemence, or outrage; physical force unlawfully exercised with the intent to harm.  _

_it is possible you have a valid idea but your definition would not match.  you may elaborate on how not all violence is negative._


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> That is interesting.  I am surprised by it because anthropology and psychology are closely related  as social sciences, I would have thought there could be some amount of overlap in research methods.  Granted, not the same, but room for some overlap.  It seems to me there ought to be complimentary methods there in terms of gathering data and then analyzing it.


I'm not familiar with a lot of the current struggles in Psychology, but I do know there has long been a struggle to move from psycho-philosophy (early models were nearly all based on philosophical approaches to thought) to a more scientific approach. Given that, I'm not surprised that Psychology, as a whole, is a bit shy of anything that's not strictly quantifiable. If money and resources were infinite, I think we'd see more qualitative study used to determine where to point the qualitative studies.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

Martial D said:


> I try to be reasonable, I don't always succeed but I try.
> 
> I am aware of the discrepancies in incarceration and lending, I would imagine discipline follows a similar pattern, I just don't think racism is a factor. I can already see the direction your politics lean in, so I'm not sure a 1 on 1 would really be worthwhile for either of us lol. Best to just let this one drop.
> 
> Politics and religion are pretty much gasoline, with discussion generally acting as a match!


I have my doubts about the blanket causation, but there's some solid evidence of widespread subconscious racism (at least in the US) that crosses racial bounds - meaning the same views (which can be seen as racist) are held to some extent by all, including the race being discriminated against. There are even some reasonable psychological models that explain why this might be happening. If you have an interest in digging in it, let me know.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not familiar with a lot of the current struggles in Psychology, but I do know there has long been a struggle to move from psycho-philosophy (early models were nearly all based on philosophical approaches to thought) to a more scientific approach. Given that, I'm not surprised that Psychology, as a whole, is a bit shy of anything that's not strictly quantifiable. If money and resources were infinite, I think we'd see more qualitative study used to determine where to point the qualitative studies.



I just read this to my girlfriend and she said "who wrote that, it was very insightful.". Lol


----------



## Martial D (Oct 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The DSM is one tool in Psychology. The study, itself, is actually science.


I guess that depends how far you are willing to stretch the word science.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I have my doubts about the blanket causation, but there's some solid evidence of widespread subconscious racism (at least in the US) that crosses racial bounds - meaning the same views (which can be seen as racist) are held to some extent by all, including the race being discriminated against. There are even some reasonable psychological models that explain why this might be happening. If you have an interest in digging in it, let me know.


One of the problems with this is the nebulous definition of 'racism', which seems to be expanding year by year at about the same rate as the universe.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure if this is possible. An action is only criminal if it's against the rules of society. In some societies it's legal and considered a right for a man to beat his wife if he see's fit. So while it's not a crime in that society, the behavior or the mentality of the action may still be the same in a society where it's a crime.



so this statement seems to be something everyone may agree with.   but the original OP post however was purposely not about "crime".  it is about a dominance hierarchy which is a psychology theory about the evolution and perpetuation of the human species.  when viewed in this framework , and when using my proposed Primal Hierarchy your concept takes on a whole different meaning.  there is no concept of crime there are only actions that either forward the species or harm it.  this particular conversation is about the human species so we are not dividing groups into different cultural groups.  
your statement "_an action is only criminal if its against the rules of society"  _while there is some validity to this is concept, it is out of context.  i would restate it as, an action may be deemed harmful to the social group, when it detracts from the success of the group.  this statement in and of itself can be applied very broadly and the purpose of my posting is to gain understanding of violence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

Martial D said:


> I guess that depends how far you are willing to stretch the word science.


Not really. They create a hypothesis. They use rigorous, randomized, double-blind studies to test the hypothesis. The theories and models to explain the outcomes are a bit wobbly, but that's to be expected with a field where direct manipulation isn't possible within the key population (humans).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I just read this to my girlfriend and she said "who wrote that, it was very insightful.". Lol


Tell her I agree with here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

Martial D said:


> One of the problems with this is the nebulous definition of 'racism', which seems to be expanding year by year at about the same rate as the universe.


Agreed. The studies I refer to use a pretty simple approach - are people with distinctly different skin color (or, in at least one case, names) treated or perceived differently. There have been psychological and sociological approaches to studying this. While some are questionable (flawed studies, or overreaching conclusions), some create fairly clear results, and results that repeat in both rigorous and fairly casual studies (the latter being more numerous, because they are easier and less expensive, but are usually conducted by informed laity, rather than scientists).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

Unless I miss the point, the OP is putting forth what is currently mostly an intellectual experiment - an attempt to build a model that reasonably fits the way things work. It appears to be relatively early in the process, so it's probably not ready for picking at the details, but for challenging the concepts.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

yall, are making my brain hurt, lol   ive been in heavy thought about this all day and my brain is tired.  im probably going to make some nonsensical posts here that i will regret later. but  i dont want to stop.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Unless I miss the point, the OP is putting forth what is currently mostly an intellectual experiment - an attempt to build a model that reasonably fits the way things work. It appears to be relatively early in the process, so it's probably not ready for picking at the details, but for challenging the concepts.


Yup.  

so the overall thought is that a lot of what we deal with as martial artists is undefined, often random and many times incorrect.  i believe that if we develop a greater understanding of the violent interactions that we are supposed to be preparing ourself to defend against, that knowledge will enable better decisions about our training and the execution when needed.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Tell her I agree with here.



On a side note I think a perfect example of the transition you note is Freud.  Most of his methodologies and dogmas have been dismissed because there is no empirical data to support them (id, ego, super ego, the Oedipal complex etc).  His views regarding female sexuality and homosexuality have even been proven to be damaging to patience.  

On the other hand his more general idea of the unconscious mind, that experience, thought, and deeds are determined not by our conscious rationality, but by irrational forces outside our conscious awareness and control, forces that could be understood and controlled by extensive therapy, has been empirically demonstrated to work.  Admittedly though his process of psychoanalysis hasn't proven to be superior to other methods as he supposed


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

so one of my hang ups with the current theory of the dominance hierarchy is that  civilized people make decisions based on morality, but criminals dont.  during a conflict with one another the civilized one will try to be dominant thru " _i have more money  and success_"  but the criminal will be dominant with "_ i'll kill you" .  _in a conflict "i"ll kill you"   always wins.  as civilized people our normal reactions always fail.  the only answer to violence is greater violence.  now i understand the hesitation some will have with this statement.  i am not talking large scale war or about entire societies.  i am referring to a one on one encounter with someone intent on doing you harm.   calling the police is not an option.  compliance is often a good tactic but not always ....why is that?  you cannot reason with that kind of harmful intent. 
within a dominance hierarchy excessive violence is oppressed.  (there is a whole side to this i am avoiding because it warrants its own thread and will muddy this one)  but violence is suppressed but over the long term of the group,  but in the mean while you still get your "i"ll kill you.  and you have to deal with it.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> On a side note I think a perfect example of the transition you note is Freud.  Most of his methodologies and dogmas have been dismissed because there is no empirical data to support them (id, ego, super ego, the Oedipal complex etc).  His views regarding female sexuality and homosexuality have even been proven to be damaging to patience.
> 
> On the other hand his more general idea of the unconscious mind, that experience, thought, and deeds are determined not by our conscious rationality, but by irrational forces outside our conscious awareness and control, forces that could be understood and controlled by extensive therapy, has been empirically demonstrated to work.  Admittedly though his process of psychoanalysis hasn't proven to be superior to other methods as he supposed


but this is the nature of all endeavors.  trial and error, with lots of error.  which is the whole point in me thinking outloud  (in type)  here where you all can tell me im wrong and nuts.

*well that and im tired of looking at posts of peoples legs to guess which one is stronger and threads about cats who do martial arts,,,,and lets not forget the fantasy book reviews.*


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> On a side note I think a perfect example of the transition you note is Freud.  Most of his methodologies and dogmas have been dismissed because there is no empirical data to support them (id, ego, super ego, the Oedipal complex etc).  His views regarding female sexuality and homosexuality have even been proven to be damaging to patience.
> 
> On the other hand his more general idea of the unconscious mind, that experience, thought, and deeds are determined not by our conscious rationality, but by irrational forces outside our conscious awareness and control, forces that could be understood and controlled by extensive therapy, has been empirically demonstrated to work.  Admittedly though his process of psychoanalysis hasn't proven to be superior to other methods as he supposed


And from a philosophical perspective, his model's terminology is still well-applied. While the structures of id/ego/superego don't seem to actually exist, the terms make useful shorthand.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> so one of my hang ups with the current theory of the dominance hierarchy is that  civilized people make decisions based on morality, but criminals dont.  during a conflict with one another the civilized one will try to be dominant thru " _i have more money  and success_"  but the criminal will be dominant with "_ i'll kill you" .  _in a conflict "i"ll kill you"   always wins.  as civilized people our normal reactions always fail.  the only answer to violence is greater violence.  now i understand the hesitation some will have with this statement.  i am not talking large scale war or about entire societies.  i am referring to a one on one encounter with someone intent on doing you harm.   calling the police is not an option.  compliance is often a good tactic but not always ....why is that?  you cannot reason with that kind of harmful intent.
> within a dominance hierarchy excessive violence is oppressed.  (there is a whole side to this i am avoiding because it warrants its own thread and will muddy this one)  but violence is suppressed but over the long term of the group,  but in the mean while you still get your "i"ll kill you.  and you have to deal with it.


I'm going to complicate things for you, my friend. I believe (haven't any opportunity to test it) that people dominate based upon their personal motivators. If, for instance we used the Spranger/Allport list of values/motivators, I'm a "Theoretical", which means I thrive on digging into, understanding, and collecting conceptual information. And this is probably where I'm most likely to display dominance behavior (just look at the examples here on MT). The economic/utilitarian value is in the middle for me, so I'll respond to dominant behavior here, but am unlikely to initiate it. The traditional (originally "religious") value is very low for me, so dominance behavior here will either miss me, or I'll respond with information (back to theoretical).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> but this is the nature of all endeavors.  trial and error, with lots of error.  which is the whole point in me thinking outloud  (in type)  here where you all can tell me im wrong and nuts.
> 
> *well that and im tired of looking at posts of peoples legs to guess which one is stronger and threads about cats who do martial arts,,,,and lets not forget the fantasy book reviews.*


Agreed. Unfortunately, some folks dismiss endeavors that start out wonky (like Psychology), because they started out wonky. Of course, Physics and Astronomy didn't start so well, either, but they've progressed a lot farther (with a much earlier start, IMO).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> so one of my hang ups with the current theory of the dominance hierarchy is that  civilized people make decisions based on morality, but criminals dont.  during a conflict with one another the civilized one will try to be dominant thru " _i have more money  and success_"  but the criminal will be dominant with "_ i'll kill you" .  _in a conflict "i"ll kill you"   always wins.  as civilized people our normal reactions always fail.  the only answer to violence is greater violence.  now i understand the hesitation some will have with this statement.  i am not talking large scale war or about entire societies.  i am referring to a one on one encounter with someone intent on doing you harm.   calling the police is not an option.  compliance is often a good tactic but not always ....why is that?  you cannot reason with that kind of harmful intent.
> within a dominance hierarchy excessive violence is oppressed.  (there is a whole side to this i am avoiding because it warrants its own thread and will muddy this one)  but violence is suppressed but over the long term of the group,  but in the mean while you still get your "i"ll kill you.  and you have to deal with it.


As a note, the use of the word "criminal" may be one of the more contentious issues in your model. Can you think of another, more objective/less inflammatory word to use? (This is why we have all the weird words used in Psychology and Sociology - to divorce the concept from existing connotations).


----------



## Martial D (Oct 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Not really. They create a hypothesis. They use rigorous, randomized, double-blind studies to test the hypothesis. The theories and models to explain the outcomes are a bit wobbly, but that's to be expected with a field where direct manipulation isn't possible within the key population (humans).


If an experiment isn't replicable, it isn't really science as far as I am concerned.  I see psychology as a pho-industry tailored to sell more and more products for big pharm. Sure, there are some interesting hypothesis, but nothing approaching hard science. Every edition of the DSM is bigger than the last, and the solution is usually BUY MORE PILLS.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Criminals function under this model. This means their values, morals and sense of right and wrong are different than the rest of society. Criminals have a hard time functioning on the outside of prison. They do not know how to succeed in the value based model. They say they find the outside world scary. Prison reinforces the Primal hierarchy through like minded groupings.
> 
> Abject poverty does not create crime. Relative poverty does. The Individual becomes aware of his low social position .



This section is not actually part of the theory. It was in my notes as a linked thought.  Other than that there us no mention of crime or criminal.



gpseymour said:


> As a note, the use of the word "criminal" may be one of the more contentious issues in your model. Can you think of another, more objective/less inflammatory word to use? (This is why we have all the weird words used in Psychology and Sociology - to divorce the concept from existing connotations).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

Martial D said:


> If an experiment isn't replicable, it isn't really science as far as I am concerned.  I see psychology as a pho-industry tailored to sell more and more products for big pharm. Sure, there are some interesting hypothesis, but nothing approaching hard science. Every edition of the DSM is bigger than the last, and the solution is usually BUY MORE PILLS.


Replication studies are performed. They are less successful at replication than you'd get in the natural sciences, for reasons that should be no surprise - psychology is a bit more individual than physics is. Psychology, like any other science, rigorously challenges its own beliefs and follows what the research tells. Each year we have more answers from research than were available before. Unfortunately, some research (such as the efficacy of treatment methods) is difficult to bring to the desired level, because we can't play with people's psyche, and there are too many uncontrollable variables. That makes it a science with known issues, it doesn't remove the science of it. And if pills are working in studies more reliably than other treatments, then that's what the research says works, so whether we like it or not, that's what science points us to.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Replication studies are performed. They are less successful at replication than you'd get in the natural sciences, for reasons that should be no surprise - psychology is a bit more individual than physics is. Psychology, like any other science, rigorously challenges its own beliefs and follows what the research tells. Each year we have more answers from research than were available before. Unfortunately, some research (such as the efficacy of treatment methods) is difficult to bring to the desired level, because we can't play with people's psyche, and there are too many uncontrollable variables. That makes it a science with known issues, it doesn't remove the science of it. And if pills are working in studies more reliably than other treatments, then that's what the research says works, so whether we like it or not, that's what science points us to.


This is way to subjective for my tastes. The lack of replicablility makes the data very subject to manipulation, and in these cases you can generally just follow the money to see why that is. The debate about whether psychology is a science is longstanding and continues to this very day in academia, so it's unlikely you and I will solve it here.

I'm comfortable with you believing in it while I do not. It doesn't effect our usual fare of when to use what punch and the physics of martial arts movements etc...


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> but this is the nature of all endeavors.  trial and error, with lots of error.  which is the whole point in me thinking outloud  (in type)  here where you all can tell me im wrong and nuts.
> 
> *well that and im tired of looking at posts of peoples legs to guess which one is stronger and threads about cats who do martial arts,,,,and lets not forget the fantasy book reviews.*


Oh agreed.  My main point was just to show that something that was largely based on a philosophical basis is viewed in a profoundly different way once emperical quantitative studies have been applied to the topic.  It's things like this that have impacted not just the practice of modern Psychology but the way studies in the field are conducted.  Jung especially was a proponent of Qualitative studies as he said...



> _Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from experimental psychology.  He would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away his scholar's gown, bid farewell to his study, and wander with human heart throughout the world.  There in the horrors of prisons, lunatic asylums and hospitals, in drab suburban pubs, in brothels and gambling-hells, in the salons of the elegant, the Stock Exchanges, socialist meetings, churches, revivalist gatherings and ecstatic sects, through love and hate, through the experience of passion in every form in his own body, he would reap richer stores of knowledge than text-books a foot thick could give him, and he will know how to doctor the sick with a real knowledge of the human soul._


_
_
But today, while such attitudes and are used in professional practice, the actual studies, and the methods within that qualitative framework, are based in quantitative studies, or the "scholar's gown" so to speak.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

Martial D said:


> This is way to subjective for my tastes. The lack of replicablility makes the data very subject to manipulation, and in these cases you can generally just follow the money to see why that is. The debate about whether psychology is a science is longstanding and continues to this very day in academia, so it's unlikely you and I will solve it here.
> 
> I'm comfortable with you believing in it while I do not. It doesn't effect our usual fare of when to use what punch and the physics of martial arts movements etc...



I think where sometimes people get confused is that the don't understand that there is a difference between a study where one is trying to determine contributing factors to a problem and then treatment.  In a proper quantitative, even qualitative, study you have a large enough data set that you can control for specific variables in individuals.  When it comes to actual therapy however you can't control for the variables, you have to address them. 

So on the one hand you will have a quantitative, statistically based study that is accurate at addressing the impact of various trauma on the majority of people BUT then when it comes time to help the client you need a broader method that is qualitative because clients will react differently to treatment. That's an example sometimes it can take weeks months even years before you want the client to talk about the incident that did traumatize them because in speaking about it they can essentially be retraumatized.

This doesn't make Psychology as a Science "less" scientific though.  All science evolves as new evidence is recognized for what it is.  I typically use the Heleocentric model as an example.  Before we had the idea of elliptical orbits Copernicus' cosmological model had the planets performing spirals centered on a circular orbit to explain what could be observed from earth.  This did not invalidate the Heliocentric model, it was simply was made more accurate when the concept of elliptical orbits was introduced.  The same can be said of the transition from Newtonian Physics to modern Physics.  Many of Newton's Principles hold true, we just have a better understanding as to WHY they happen, he was wrong on that part in many ways, the best example I can think of is his idea of Aether.  His theory of light required a substance to exist in space, which he called Aether, to propogate through.  Heck until Einstein proposing that light is both a particle and a wave you had a "war" of sorts over whether it was "simply" a particle or a wave.

Science has always been about change and evolution, Psychology is no different.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I think where sometimes people get confused is that the don't understand that there is a difference between a study where one is trying to determine contributing factors to a problem and then treatment.  In a proper quantitative, even qualitative, study you have a large enough data set that you can control for specific variables in individuals.  When it comes to actual therapy however you can't control for the variables, you have to address them.
> 
> So on the one hand you will have a quantitative, statistically based study that is accurate at addressing the impact of various trauma on the majority of people BUT then when it comes time to help the client you need a broader method that is qualitative because clients will react differently to treatment. That's an example sometimes it can take weeks months even years before you want the client to talk about the incident that did traumatize them because in speaking about it they can essentially be retraumatized.
> 
> ...


I think part of the problem is that most folks don't see a difference between Psychology and Psychological/Psychiatric treatment. There's a definite lack of science (but not evidence) behind treatment. In fact, what rigorous research we do have suggests that most kinds of treatment are effective for the right people, when delivered by the right professional. Of course, that may be as close as we ever get, since the variables are as wide-ranging as those surrounding self-defense.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> the purpose of my posting is to gain understanding of violence.


I don't think this can be understood in a vacuum.  There is always going to be some kind of context


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think part of the problem is that most folks don't see a difference between Psychology and Psychological/Psychiatric treatment. There's a definite lack of science (but not evidence) behind treatment. In fact, what rigorous research we do have suggests that most kinds of treatment are effective for the right people, when delivered by the right professional. Of course, that may be as close as we ever get, since the variables are as wide-ranging as those surrounding self-defense.




Exactly.  I think another problem is that people first see Psychology and treatment as the same and then, to top it off, don't know and/or understand the importance of Evidence Based Practices vs others types of treatment.  Such practices are supported by multi-year studies involving thousands of patients.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think this can be understood in a vacuum.  There is always going to be some kind of context



Agreed.  One of the reasons I went down the psychological route is because the reasons for violence (criminal or not) is incredibly variable and revolves around the Psychology of the person performing the act and that Psychology is a product of a miriad of factors.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> yall, are making my brain hurt, lol   ive been in heavy thought about this all day and my brain is tired.  im probably going to make some nonsensical posts here that i will regret later. but  i dont want to stop.


You asked for it. lol..  But I'm right there with you on the brain hurt.  

If I was forced to do a research paper on this, I would probably start with the most "simple" insect or life form as possible.  This way you could avoid being tangled in complexities that are often found in larger life forms.   I would also probably wouldn't pick a social animal.  Things like ants and bees probably should be avoided.   Maybe pick a solitary insect and take note of things the violence that insect does.   

You have territorial violence, self-defense violence, and mating violence (that I can think off the top of my head).  There may be some fungus type violence, where a fungus causes the insect to loose its mind, but double check on that. There may be chemical violence where a chemical makes an insect aggressive.   Looking at a solitary insect will help you narrow things down. To where you can focus on the same areas of where a solitary insect is violent or aggressive.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 27, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Agreed.  One of the reasons I went down the psychological route is because the reasons for violence (criminal or not) is incredibly variable and revolves around the Psychology of the person performing the act and that Psychology is a product of a miriad of factors.


At the moment I disagree with this premise.  On the surface there are multitudes of reasons but if we filter them down I believe there will only be a small hand full of underlying reasons that for the most part are unconscious. There may be many factors or reasons but I believe that if we look across a large sample of incidents over time patterns of underlying psychological motivators will emerge.

Edit: and I just wrote the same thing twice in the same post.  Albeit the second one is worded better,,yep im tired


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> At the moment I disagree with this premise.  On the surface there are multitudes of reasons but if we filter them down I believe there will only be a small hand full of underlying reasons that for the most part are unconscious. There may be many factors or reasons but I believe that if we look across a large sample of incidents over time patterns of underlying psychological motivators will emerge.
> 
> Edit: and I just wrote the same thing twice in the same post.  Albeit the second one is worded better,,yep im tired




Well I suppose it depends on your outlook.  If you are simply looking at broad strokes I would agree with you.  Say something as simple as just saying "toxic masculinity with potential accompanying trauma." 

The thing is, at least imo, the greatest value in studying such a topic is when you get "into the weeds" so to speak.  The origins and expressions of toxic masculinity can be different depending on socioeconomic and cultural background there are clearly different types of trauma and understanding the differences can be useful in understanding the pathology of violence.  As an example some  can lead to "generic" aggressive/violent tendencies, where as others can result in the aggression/violence being largely limited to the domestic front and then yet another combination of factors can result in the "violence" being focused on a near compulsion to compete (either in combat sports or simply aggressive sports in general) etc.

To clarify something.  The term "toxic masculinity" can be seen as "loaded" because some people immediately jump to the conclusion that it is saying "masculinity in general is toxic" this is not the case.  The term is very specific and address dominance, devaluation of women, extreme self-reliance, and the suppression of emotions.  The surrounding behaviors make the men more likely to suffer from depression, stress, body image problems and engage in substance abuse.  For an extreme, non-crime related, example think of the guy you see at the gym who is roiding up and dating a different girl every month with 3 different child support cases with 3 different women because he has profound self esteem issues surrounding the idea of what "being a real man" is.  Of course it can reveal itself in more subtle ways, but it is the way that it damages not only the individual but society around them that the science is trying to address.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 27, 2017)

"toxic masculinity"

Oh brother.....


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> At the moment I disagree with this premise.  On the surface there are multitudes of reasons but if we filter them down I believe there will only be a small hand full of underlying reasons that for the most part are unconscious. There may be many factors or reasons but I believe that if we look across a large sample of incidents over time patterns of underlying psychological motivators will emerge.
> 
> Edit: and I just wrote the same thing twice in the same post.  Albeit the second one is worded better,,yep im tired



If we looked at why babies hit each other. I imagine it would not be much difference to why adults do.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

Martial D said:


> "toxic masculinity"
> 
> Oh brother.....



That's the term used in psychology.  It actually has NO origin in Feminism believe it or not but rather the Mythopoetic men's movement.  It is about what is harmful to men, and how that spirals out.  This is the best explanation I have seen.


> ...I’d say the verbiage isn’t exactly nailing it from a marketing/branding perspective at this point in history. But the concept itself is crucial.
> 
> Here’s toxic masculinity as I understand it:
> 
> ...



I don't think anybody here would deny that these myths exist and that many people are influenced by the minute sometimes to the point of doing harm to their psychological well-being.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If we looked at why babies hit each other. I imagine it would not be much difference to why adults do.



Not really.  The lymbic system isn't done developing until the mid 20s so an infant is largely an instinctual machine.  An adult who engages in violence in an anti-social manner will this have different reasons for engaging in violence usually a byproduct of trauma or organic damage.  As examples, someone who suffered from domestic abuse as a child is far more likely to commit such abuse themselves (trauma) and people suffering from Alzheimer's can become violent due to the fact that the disease causes organic damage to the lymbic system.  They are even discovering from various medical scans that long term abuse/psychological trauma can have an effect of brain development.

The reason proposed for this is that a lymbic system that is not fully developed is an evolutionary method of encouraging risk behaviors as such behaviors seem to have a connection to learning specific tasks, especially those related to memory.  Once you are past the "core" learning phase the pathways "solidify" as learning A LOT in a relatively short period of time is no longer necessary.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> That's the term used in psychology.  It actually has NO origin in Feminism believe it or not but rather the Mythopoetic men's movement.  It is about what is harmful to men, and how that spirals out.  This is the best explanation I have seen.
> 
> 
> I don't think anybody here would deny that these myths exist and that many people are influenced by the minute sometimes to the point of doing harm to their psychological well-being.


This is, frankly, complete nonsense. Litterally nobody expects those things or fears concequences of not meeting those non-existent 'expectations'.

The term is just another slight against the myth of some patriarchy strawman that give sjws and feminists a reason to exist long past their expiry date.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> At the moment I disagree with this premise.  On the surface there are multitudes of reasons but if we filter them down I believe there will only be a small hand full of underlying reasons that for the most part are unconscious. There may be many factors or reasons but I believe that if we look across a large sample of incidents over time patterns of underlying psychological motivators will emerge.
> 
> Edit: and I just wrote the same thing twice in the same post.  Albeit the second one is worded better,,yep im tired


It sounds like you're working toward a model, rather than a full explanation. A model is intended to try to cover a group of behaviors or processes, but usually not all (ignoring outliers keeps it simpler, so long as you identify what makes it an outlier). It purposely ignores nuances, to get to a base process that appears to affect most of the interactions. This is used a lot in Psychology, because brains are too variable to be universally covered by any single detailed explanation. A model of cyclic anger won't accurately cover every person, but does a pretty good job of covering "people". I think you can do the same with your model. For now, that means you'll want to start identifying what isn't covered by the model. When you find something, you either adjust the model, or identify that circumstance as an outlier not covered by the model. The fewer instances you have to resort to classifying as outliers, the stronger the model is.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2017)

Martial D said:


> This is, frankly, complete nonsense. Litterally nobody expects those things or fears concequences of not meeting those non-existent 'expectations'.
> 
> The term is just another slight against the myth of some patriarchy strawman that give sjws and feminists a reason to exist long past their expiry date.


You must love a rather charmed life then because I see that kind of behavior all the time, not just the people I arrest but the "hyper" alphas I work with, heck people in my Martial arts school (especially one Marine).  While the term is "new" it has been something addressed for decades in the psychology and criminology field as a reality with SOME men.

You also raised SJWs and Feminists, which I think reveals a bias on your part because the term was coined by neither.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If we looked at why babies hit each other. I imagine it would not be much difference to why adults do.


Probably especially true among those adults who tend to hit other adults. I'd have to ponder whether it's equally true for those less prone to hitting - it probably is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Not really.  The lymbic system isn't done developing until the mid 20s so an infant is largely an instinctual machine.  An adult who engages in violence in an anti-social manner will this have different reasons for engaging in violence usually a byproduct of trauma or organic damage.  As examples, someone who suffered from domestic abuse as a child is far more likely to commit such abuse themselves (trauma) and people suffering from Alzheimer's can become violent due to the fact that the disease causes organic damage to the lymbic system.  They are even discovering from various medical scans that long term abuse/psychological trauma can have an effect of brain development.
> 
> The reason proposed for this is that a lymbic system that is not fully developed is an evolutionary method of encouraging risk behaviors as such behaviors seem to have a connection to learning specific tasks, especially those related to memory.  Once you are past the "core" learning phase the pathways "solidify" as learning A LOT in a relatively short period of time is no longer necessary.


There are a lot of people who fail to exert (or cannot exert) control over their impulses, and strike out nearly like a child. I think DB's point is that at the moment an adult strikes, they are likely under control of that same limbic system (it's the executive center - what gives us control over the limbic system - that develops late, IIRC).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2017)

Martial D said:


> This is, frankly, complete nonsense. Litterally nobody expects those things or fears concequences of not meeting those non-existent 'expectations'.
> 
> The term is just another slight against the myth of some patriarchy strawman that give sjws and feminists a reason to exist long past their expiry date.


I disagree. There are people who grow up learning to suppress emotions because "boys don't cry", and this learned suppression has significant links to depression and other issues. The extreme self-reliance can lead to lacking a social support structure, which has implications in an even broader area. Note that the idea is that these ideals can be toxic in the extreme, though in lower "doses" they may not. And the effect is pretty individual (again, that high number of variables).

The term has been co-opted by some feminists, but was not originated by them.


----------



## jobo (Oct 28, 2017)

i find it ironic that people who have dedicated a big part of there lives to learning how to inflict violence in the most effective and efficient way, have such a down on people who use violence. Perhaps considering your own phycology would be illuminating?


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I disagree. There are people who grow up learning to suppress emotions because "boys don't cry", and this learned suppression has significant links to depression and other issues. The extreme self-reliance can lead to lacking a social support structure, which has implications in an even broader area. Note that the idea is that these ideals can be toxic in the extreme, though in lower "doses" they may not. And the effect is pretty individual (again, that high number of variables).
> 
> The term has been co-opted by some feminists, but was not originated by them.



I would also like to point out that toxic masculinity and patriarchy (as Martial D mentioned) are different concepts.  When they are mentioned together it is typically within the context that specific aggressive/toxic behaviors are accepted, sometimes even applauded in men BUT when women engage in similar behaviors it is more often seen as inappropriate.  The guy that sleeps around is a "stud".  This kind of behavior (especially if performed in a high risk fashion) can be symptomatic of depression, yet much of society attaches the positive "stud" adjective to the activity.  That in and of itself is part of the toxic masculinity concept when it stands alone.  It doesn't enter the patriarchal realm until you compare that to the adjective that much of society would attach to a female engaging in the same behavior, "slut" which has a decidedly negative connotation.

Ultimately I wouldn't even say feminists co-opted the term. That infers that took a term and twisted it to a different meaning.  What they have done is taken a now proven concept/term and then show how much of society views men who engage in such behaviors and then contrasts it with how society views women who engage in similar behaviors.  "Stud" vs "slut", "strong" vs "beotch", "very focused" vs "control freak" etc.

Many elements in science, especially social science, appear "understood" even to be common sense by most people... right up until the element in question becomes part of an ongoing ideolological flash point.  When that happens it all goes sideways.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 28, 2017)

Can we not go down the divisive path of political thought.  I understand that right and left have different views of the world that show up in psychology but I don't want this thread locked.  It is my only vehicle to work this out with some peer review.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Can we not go down the divisive path of political thought.  I understand that right and left have different views of the world that show up in psychology but I don't want this thread locked.  It is my only vehicle to work this out with some peer review.



Well here in lies the problem, whether you like it or not the minute that part of your initial proposal mentioned criminality and



hoshin1600 said:


> All male perpetrated interpersonal violence is an expression of the Primal dominance hierarchy.



Note I am not saying you proposal there is right or wrong but...

You entered today's political realm because anything having to do with stereotypical gender roles, criminality and the insentive behind criminality are political hot buttons.  Hell I only used a term that is part of modern Psychology study and the response was "oh brother" and it went sideways from there because of ideological differences.

I LOVE what you tried to do here, but as much as I wish we were all Vulcans and that it could be a productive discussion, I don't see a way for politics, in our currently very divided society, to be avoided.


----------



## jobo (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I would also like to point out that toxic masculinity and patriarchy (as Martial D mentioned) are different concepts.  When they are mentioned together it is typically within the context that specific aggressive/toxic behaviors are accepted, sometimes even applauded in men BUT when women engage in similar behaviors it is more often seen as inappropriate.  The guy that sleeps around is a "stud".  This kind of behavior (especially if performed in a high risk fashion) can be symptomatic of depression, yet much of society attaches the positive "stud" adjective to the activity.  That in and of itself is part of the toxic masculinity concept when it stands alone.  It doesn't enter the patriarchal realm until you compare that to the adjective that much of society would attach to a female engaging in the same behavior, "slut" which has a decidedly negative connotation.
> 
> Ultimately I wouldn't even say feminists co-opted the term. That infers that took a term and twisted it to a different meaning.  What they have done is taken a now proven concept/term and then show how much of society views men who engage in such behaviors and then contrasts it with how society views women who engage in similar behaviors.  "Stud" vs "slut", "strong" vs "beotch", "very focused" vs "control freak" etc.
> 
> Many elements in science, especially social science, appear "understood" even to be common sense by most people... right up until the element in question becomes part of an ongoing ideolological flash point.  When that happens it all goes sideways.


i think that's far to simplistic, in my experience other women are far more judgmental of girls that sleep around, just as other males are envious of males that do like wise, to say society as a whole views them differently, is just plain wrong


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> You entered today's political realm because anything having to do with stereotypical gender roles, criminality and the insentive behind criminality are political hot buttons.


Personally within this thread I have no interest in hot buttons.  We are all martial artists, that is my focus.


----------



## geezer (Oct 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> i find it ironic that people who have dedicated a big part of there lives to learning how to inflict violence in the most effective and efficient way, have such a down on people who use violence....



Actually, _this_ is pretty much the standard myth of the "peaceful warrior" in TMA, especially non-sport/non-contact traditional martial arts that mainly teach kids. You know the spiel: teaching MA to inculcate values such as discipline, hard-work, respect, confidence, fitness of mind and body, and learning to fight to avoid fighting. Didn't you see the _Karate Kid? _


----------



## geezer (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> ...I LOVE what you tried to do here, but as much as *I wish we were all Vulcans* and that it could be a productive discussion, I don't see a way for politics, in our currently very divided society, to be avoided.



Hey Juany, _Vulcans_ got issues like stereotypes, racism, chauvinism, and bullying too.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Personally within this thread I have no interest in hot buttons.  We are all martial artists, that is my focus.


I don't either.  The problem is that the study of violence based on gender is in and of itself a hot buttons issue since the bulk of modern science, including neuroscience, has moved away from the evolutionary models and focuses more on the environment in which people are nurtered.  I mentioned neuroscience because, as we have seen, the field of Psychology is woefully misunderstood and conclusions reflexively dismissed.  Neuroscience, through brain scans, has shown that juvenile and young adult brains are underdeveloped and that trauma can effect the lymbic system and brain development, these having an impact on violence, impulse control and risk taking behaviors.  That in and of itself is a hot buttons because regardless of the fact that is "hard science" it raises questions in terms of how the criminal justice system should address defendants.  

There really is no way to avoid hot buttons on this particular topic, sadly, unless you are discussing it with a group who agrees to be "Mr Spock" and leave Ideology at the door and argue data vs data and not data vs ideology.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2017)

geezer said:


> Hey Juany, _Vulcans_ got issues like stereotypes, racism, chauvinism, and bullying too.



Let me rephrase.  I wish we were all Spock, the TOS version.  (so long as he isn't in pon farr mode  )


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I don't either.  The problem is that the study of violence based on gender is in and of itself a hot buttons issue since the bulk of modern science, including neuroscience, has moved away from the evolutionary models and focuses more on the environment in which people are nurtered.  I mentioned neuroscience because, as we have seen, the field of Psychology is woefully misunderstood and conclusions reflexively dismissed.  Neuroscience, through brain scans, has shown that juvenile and young adult brains are underdeveloped and that trauma can effect the lymbic system and brain development, these having an impact on violence, impulse control and risk taking behaviors.  That in and of itself is a hot buttons because regardless of the fact that is "hard science" it raises questions in terms of how the criminal justice system should address defendants.
> 
> There really is no way to avoid hot buttons on this particular topic, sadly, unless you are discussing it with a group who agrees to be "Mr Spock" and leave Ideology at the door and argue data vs data and not data vs ideology.


be that as it may, this is a martial arts forum. we are martial artists and my interest in the subject is from that starting point.  being a male, i have no intention of  having to "fight" a women.  regardless of ideology we do know that males engage in violent crime more often than women. therefore it is not unreasonable to make the assumption that if i have to defend my self and my family the percentage of it being a male is higher and it can be assumed as such.   i have not seen a thread yet here on MT that did not make the assumption of a male attacker.
 if "there is no way to avoid an ideology"  then that is your baggage not mine.  we would not be having this conversation if not for you introducing the ideological concept the the thread.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 28, 2017)

i am going to review my original concept and perhaps be a little more articulate.

from an evolutionary perspective,  when there is a group of an animals living in a society they have to solve the problem of living together in a unified manner that helps to forward the species.  evolution seems to have solved the social issue by creating a dominance hierarchy.  if we didnt have this then every individual would be only interested in self preservation and we know that group preservation is more successful than an individual one.  species perpetuation wouldnt go very far if we ate our young and killed our mate.  to progress at first you note the patterns of behavior that make up the hierarchy and adapt socially but also over time you biologically adapt to the dominance hierarchy.  so what emerges is a set of social behaviors.  the first problem is what are the behaviors that will keep me alive in the group, that will keep me from having the other members tear me apart and kill me (chimps do this, its quite violent)  so you learn quickly  who can tear you apart and who you can tear apart. you learn the behaviors that keep this from happening.   this establishes the  "PECK ORDER"  if we look at a less complex creature like a chicken, the dominant male is usually the largest and strongest and perhaps the most willing to use force on the others. (the best fighter) so this model of dominance hierarchy i have termed the "Primal dominance hierarchy"   but we are not chickens and we are by far more complex. we have a frontal cortex and what that does is enable us to actually create our own hierarchy and move past the alligator brain that does nothing but fight, eat and procreate.  the human brain has neuroplasticity, we can change the "wiring" in our neocortex.  we have a morality.  that changes the hierarchy that we function within.  as a species we have moved away from violence as the solution to social order. now we are not there 100%  and that is the base line for the issue.  the morality or values we have create a rule set within the hierarchy that not eveyone plays by.  in that is the paradox.  a percentage are within a value based hierarchy and a percentage is working within a Primal hierarchy.  

remember these models are expressions of the socially acceptable behaviors within that particular hierarchy.  AND THEY DONT MATCH.  as self defenders we have to accept that some people are operating under a different set of right and wrong.  our sense of what is normal becomes an unconscious assumption of how others are going to behave.  these assumptions can work against us in a multitude of ways.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 28, 2017)

*The dominance hierarchy is the framework that the fabric of societal behaviors are laid upon.
*
Rory mIller has put forth his ideas of what he calls "the logic of violence"  he states the motivations for violence are 

fear
material gain
status
membership
territory
protocols
social motivations
pleasure
i propose beneath all of these motivators lies the dominance hierarchy that operates subconsciously.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i am going to review my original concept and perhaps be a little more articulate.
> 
> from an evolutionary perspective,  when there is a group of an animals living in a society they have to solve the problem of living together in a unified manner that helps to forward the species.  evolution seems to have solved the social issue by creating a dominance hierarchy.  if we didnt have this then every individual would be only interested in self preservation and we know that group preservation is more successful than an individual one.  species perpetuation wouldnt go very far if we ate our young and killed our mate.  to progress at first you note the patterns of behavior that make up the hierarchy and adapt socially but also over time you biologically adapt to the dominance hierarchy.  so what emerges is a set of social behaviors.  the first problem is what are the behaviors that will keep me alive in the group, that will keep me from having the other members tear me apart and kill me (chimps do this, its quite violent)  so you learn quickly  who can tear you apart and who you can tear apart. you learn the behaviors that keep this from happening.   this establishes the  "PECK ORDER"  if we look at a less complex creature like a chicken, the dominant male is usually the largest and strongest and perhaps the most willing to use force on the others. (the best fighter) so this model of dominance hierarchy i have termed the "Primal dominance hierarchy"   but we are not chickens and we are by far more complex. we have a frontal cortex and what that does is enable us to actually create our own hierarchy and move past the alligator brain that does nothing but fight, eat and procreate.  the human brain has neuroplasticity, we can change the "wiring" in our neocortex.  we have a morality.  that changes the hierarchy that we function within.  as a species we have moved away from violence as the solution to social order. now we are not there 100%  and that is the base line for the issue.  the morality or values we have create a rule set within the hierarchy that not eveyone plays by.  in that is the paradox.  a percentage are within a value based hierarchy and a percentage is working within a Primal hierarchy.
> 
> remember these models are expressions of the socially acceptable behaviors within that particular hierarchy.  AND THEY DONT MATCH.  as self defenders we have to accept that some people are operating under a different set of right and wrong.  our sense of what is normal becomes an unconscious assumption of how others are going to behave.  these assumptions can work against us in a multitude of ways.




I totally get what you are saying but I think you are looking at it through an outdated lens.  Modern Psychology, Neuroscience and many in the growing field of evolutionary psychology look at it like this.

There are biological components.  The lymbic system, the fight or flight response etc.  This provides the physiological foundation on how/why conflict occurrs. But that is largely the limit of what evolution has brought us because of the impact our cognitive abilities provide vs other animals. 

Basically at it's core there is no biological difference that makes men  more violent than women.  The psychology of the person can be influence by these factors in the moment but only to a degree.  It is the envionment in which they were nurtured which has the biggest impact on why the trigger is pulled.  

So, to use historical periods as a model, in a tribal hunter gather society your environment dictates you be more ready to "pull the trigger" whether to ensure a successful hunt or protect "yours" from a rival tribe.

As society becomes more structured the environment that "trains" us psychologically becomes safer, there is less need to hunt so there is less need to pull the trigger.  

Now in many cultures there is environmental programming, that when taken to extremes can be toxic, that say "the man is X", in this case more violent.  However they have performed quantitative and qualitative studies comparing patriarchal and matriarchal communities in the developing world where the "norms" in the patriarchal one (firm leadership, spatial reasoning, control and dominance being stronger in men) is mirrored by the women in the matriarchal society.  In short the only difference in terms of the capacity for violence, not born of the Psychology created by our nurturing environment, is that men are on average stronger, faster and better suited for committing physical violence beyond that biological evolution has very little to do with it.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 28, 2017)

when a conflict occurs i have termed this a
*Volatile Interaction*
_When two or more bodies that interact have a potential for violence._

when an individual is operating under the Primal model his response and solution to the conflict leans toward violence. (might is right)
when an individual is operating under the Value model his response tends to lean towards negotiation. (peaceful resolution and agreement)
 the problem is that an individual who is operating within the Primal model does not hold negotiation as a valid response.

in the 1970's and 80's  the work of Nicholas Groth showed us that the underlying motivation for sexual crime was dominance and power.  the side benefit from his studies was the revelation that many prevention concepts were nothing more than myth and had no basis in reality.  they didnt actually work.
we can extrapolate that concept to gain an understanding of other violent behaviors that also have a basis on dominance and power.

the first thing to be learned is    _you cannot negotiate with violence._


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2017)

The above being said, a dominance heirarchy (which is actually covered extensively in the overarching concept of toxic masculinity) is indeed a driving force of violence, even if you look at aggressive competitions.  The only contention I have, unless I misunderstood, is I believe you see that as a product of human evolution of man whereas modern science sees it as a product of the contemporary environment the subject is raised in, or the "reprogramming" that may be done via intensive training or traumatic incidents.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> There are biological components. The lymbic system, the fight or flight response etc. This provides the physiological foundation on how/why conflict occurrs.


if you say im "outdated" you will have to expand on this.  because i dont see this at all.  the lymbic system to an extent regulate our emotions and memories,  thus within memories it controls our "procedural memory"  and this is how we attain skills ,,in this case our skill in martial arts.  the fight / flight is self evident, but these two systems in now way provide a HOW  or a WHY  conflict occurrs.  it dictates an applicable skill set.



Juany118 said:


> Basically at it's core there is no biological difference that makes men more violent than women


again lets stay away from genders.  and for the record i never said men are more violent.  i did actually state that the repercussions of violence are greater with men.  there is no doubt that men can generate more force in a strike than a women ,,, but this is all beside the point and the conversation



Juany118 said:


> So, to use historical periods as a model, in a tribal hunter gather society your environment dictates you be more ready to "pull the trigger" whether to ensure a successful hunt or protect "yours" from a rival tribe.


this is actually very close to what i am saying.



Juany118 said:


> In short the only difference in terms of the capacity for violence, not born of the Psychology created by our nurturing environment, is that men are on average stronger, faster and better suited for committing physical violence beyond that biological evolution has very little to do with it.


i dont know where you are going with this...i actually do not disagree with your statement , i just dont know how it relates to what i am saying.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> The above being said, a dominance heirarchy (which is actually covered extensively in the overarching concept of toxic masculinity) is indeed a driving force of violence, even if you look at aggressive competitions.  The only contention I have, unless I misunderstood, is I believe you see that as a product of human evolution of man whereas modern science sees it as a product of the contemporary environment the subject is raised in, or the "reprogramming" that may be done via intensive training or traumatic incidents.


i will have to spend some time reading on "toxic masculinity"  so i can have a logical debate on this.  we may be saying the same thing.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> if you say im "outdated" you will have to expand on this.  because i dont see this at all.  the lymbic system to an extent regulate our emotions and memories,  thus within memories it controls our "procedural memory"  and this is how we attain skills ,,in this case our skill in martial arts.  the fight / flight is self evident, but these two systems in now way provide a HOW  or a WHY  conflict occurrs.  it dictates an applicable skill set.
> 
> 
> again lets stay away from genders.  and for the record i never said men are more violent.  i did actually state that the repercussions of violence are greater with men.  there is no doubt that men can generate more force in a strike than a women ,,, but this is all beside the point and the conversation
> ...




Then it's my misunderstanding because I thought you were saying that men due to biological evolution have this dominance dynamic. That is something that was believe many decades ago but with increasing Knowledge from the fields of Psychology and Neuroscience has essentially been debunked.  My apologies for misunderstanding where you saw the origin of the dominance dynamic


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Then it's my misunderstanding because I thought you were saying that men due to biological evolution have this dominance dynamic. That is something that was believe many decades ago but with increasing Knowledge from the fields of Psychology and Neuroscience has essentially been debunked.  My apologies for misunderstanding where you saw the origin of the dominance dynamic


when i use the term dominance i am not using it as an equivalent to violence or to a toxic behavior.  the hierarchy gives rise to acceptable behaviors and non acceptable behaviors.   without a framework of social norms society would collapse.  to be successful in the world we need to navigate interpersonal relationships.  this is a hierarchy, one that we move through to get to that "corner office". 
now if we look at an underprivileged youth he also has to navigate through a hierarchy within a gang or a neighborhood.  it is the same social workings but on different frame works.
but the guy working for the corner office and the teen looking for street cred have different values.  these values will clash.   my thought is to understand the similarities across these type of behaviors and where they diverge.

through deep understanding and building a working model (albeit simplified)  the goal is to have this model as a guide for developing martial arts training procedures. ie how we train


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 28, 2017)

As I read over posts again  I thought I would add that in 
Dominant hierarchy groups like primates the most violent member is not the alpha.  The amount of grooming of others plays a significant role.  So the alpha also needs a political savy. A group does not want a malevolent leader.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> when i use the term dominance i am not using it as an equivalent to violence or to a toxic behavior.  the hierarchy gives rise to acceptable behaviors and non acceptable behaviors.   without a framework of social norms society would collapse.  to be successful in the world we need to navigate interpersonal relationships.  this is a hierarchy, one that we move through to get to that "corner office".
> now if we look at an underprivileged youth he also has to navigate through a hierarchy within a gang or a neighborhood.  it is the same social workings but on different frame works.
> but the guy working for the corner office and the teen looking for street cred have different values.  these values will clash.   my thought is to understand the similarities across these type of behaviors and where they diverge.
> 
> through deep understanding and building a working model (albeit simplified)  the goal is to have this model as a guide for developing martial arts training procedures. ie how we train




Well, I would argue that "dominance", in a sociological and psychological perspective, is a negative and/or toxic trait in a civilized and cooperative society under the rule of law.

Dominance is not simply controlling a particular situation, it is about consistent and knowing control over others, against their will, in an overall heirarchy. It is domineering in nature.  So where a gang member may be using violence as a tool of control over the shopkeeper on his "turf" (dominance) the shopkeeper, if he uses violence to defend himself against said gang member, would be using it simply to protect himself and regain his own agency. 

Dominance in short is controlling a hierarchy through some sort of force whether by political force, violence, psychological force, economic force. In short the person who is dominant creates, through his dominance, someone who is oppressed.  You can have control of a heirarchy however without dominance, allowing those underneath you to maintain their own agency (within limits agreed to by society).  This kind of power can occur in a democratic system, collectivization, a job market where people apply for where they wish to work vs being an indentured servant or an outright slave etc.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> As I read over posts again  I thought I would add that in
> Dominant hierarchy groups like primates the most violent member is not the alpha.  The amount of grooming of others plays a significant role.  So the alpha also needs a political savy. A group does not want a malevolent leader.




Indeed but in the end there are two differences.  First the level of cognition is very different.  Secondly the Alpha, while not the most violent, is the most powerful.  If the more violent guy challenges the Alpha he gets beat down.  I see this last dynamic often in my work.  I work with a HUGE guy, all muscle.  He is quite and slow to anger but carries himself in such a way you know he could break you.  He is not however, in a sociological manner, engaging in dominance when his mere presence diffuses a situation where the thug was trying to express dominance because Dominance in the end is an expression of force of some sort.  Force is not necessary to exert control however.

I think maybe the problem we are having is that we may be using two different definitions.  You are using the one used largely for animal communities.  I am using the one used in Psychology.  Yes in psychology being the submissive can have a benefit but to quote Dario Maestripieri Ph.D.

"...So the advantage of establishing dominance to the subordinate is that he cuts his losses. Cutting one's losses? That's it? Yes, the truth is that subordination sucks, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.  

Behaving submissively to the dominant is advantageous to the subordinate only as a short-term strategy, to give the subordinate some time to acquire more physical strength or political power to mount an effective rebellion against the dominant. For example, it's advantageous to a younger and smaller individual to be subordinate to an older and larger one until the former has grown to be as large as or larger than the latter. Then, a fight will become necessary and advantageous. If the subordinate never challenges the dominant, the costs of subordination would continue to accumulate over time and at some point, this would become a maladaptive strategy: the costs would be greater than the benefits...."

So we may simply be having a disagreement based in the semantics of a single word.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 28, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Well, I would argue that "dominance", in a sociological and psychological perspective, is a negative and/or toxic trait in a civilized and cooperative society under the rule of law.
> 
> Dominance is not simply controlling a particular situation, it is about consistent and knowing control over others, against their will, in an overall heirarchy. It is domineering in nature.  So where a gang member may be using violence as a tool of control over the shopkeeper on his "turf" (dominance) the shopkeeper, if he uses violence to defend himself against said gang member, would be using it simply to protect himself and regain his own agency.
> 
> Dominance in short is controlling a hierarchy through some sort of force whether by political force, violence, psychological force, economic force. In short the person who is dominant creates, through his dominance, someone who is oppressed.  You can have control of a heirarchy however without dominance, allowing those underneath you to maintain their own agency (within limits agreed to by society).  This kind of power can occur in a democratic system, collectivization, a job market where people apply for where they wish to work vs being an indentured servant or an outright slave etc.


Yes I see where you are coming from now I was just reading Wikipedia on toxic masculinity and hegemonic masculinity and your response just now tells me that we have nothing we can discuss.  You are correct your ideological views send this conversation down a rabbit hole of Marxist thought that I feel are inseparable.  The ideology of toxic masculinity that bases it's belief on the suppression of women, misogyny homophobia. ....has absolutely nothing to do with my thoughts......I have been reading a lot about Marxism of late and to be honest I do not really want to continue this conversation.
I really enjoy your contribution when your coming from the LEO  side...not so much when your pushing ideology from your girl friends SJW opinions.  So for now I'm done.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Yes I see where you are coming from now I was just reading Wikipedia on toxic masculinity and hegemonic masculinity and your response just now tells me that we have nothing we can discuss.  You are correct your ideological views send this conversation down a rabbit hole of Marxist thought that I feel are inseparable.  The ideology of toxic masculinity that bases it's belief on the suppression of women, misogyny homophobia. ....has absolutely nothing to do with my thoughts......I have been reading a lot about Marxism of late and to be honest I do not really want to continue this conversation.
> I really enjoy your contribution when your coming from the LEO  side...not so much when your pushing ideology from your girl friends SJW opinions.  So for now I'm done.



To confirm you read this one?  Toxic masculinity - Wikipedia

I only ask because this has NOTHING to do with Feminism at all and speaks largely (almost exclusively) as to how it is damaging to men as individuals and how that in turn is damaging to society.  

As an example it specifically states... "The concept of toxic masculinity is not intended to demonize men or male attributes, but rather to emphasize the harmful effects of conformity to certain traditional masculine ideal behaviors such as dominance.."

Those mythical ideals, or certain/specific attributes being the ones like "real men don't cry" and physical dominance, that men are "the bread winners" etc.  I fail to see how this is Marxist, or even feminist in nature, it is talking about hyper masculine sterotypes that sadly some men fall into.  I would be interested to know how you came to that conclusion from the wiki entry (if we are talking about the same one).

Here is an article agreeing with me btw from one of the MOST Conservative news outlets in the Country.  Understanding Toxic Masculinity: Why Defending Men Isn't Enough

As for LEO stuff, toxic masculinity is actually being used as a corner stone for prison rehabilitation and therapy related to diversion programs with Youth, hence why I know a bit about it, so it's related to my LE experience.  So like it or not, the premise you are creating is already largely created and discussed at length in numerous peer reviewed studies based on quantitative research and it's being put into practice in our Prisons and schools that teach at risk youth.

Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison.  - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## drop bear (Oct 29, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I totally get what you are saying but I think you are looking at it through an outdated lens. Modern Psychology, Neuroscience and many in the growing field of evolutionary psychology look at it like this.



Is there a source?


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Is there a source?


Numerous, since we got a lot going on at work I will start with the neuroscience here...

The impact of brain development from infancy to your 20's and how this is related to antisocial and violent behavior.
http://clbb.mgh.harvard.edu/juvenilejustice/

A summary on how childhood trauma can have a direct impact and retard proper brain development as it relates to the above...
Childhood trauma and abuse affect brain physiology

Of course this can also happen from injury, natural birth defect etc.


This is where the "biological" portion of Violence equation largely stems from.  Then the environment, not just how your parents raised you but the rules of the society you live in, your peers etc., get layered upon this biological framework.  When stuff calms down I'll try to find the Psychology and joint studies that speak to that portion.

The short form however is that genetics and brain development can create a higher propensity for specific types of behavior (nature) but the environment in which we are raised is what primarily determines if that higher propensity is actually acted upon or not (nurture.)

The problem on the Psychology side is that for actual referenced quantitative studies there is little on violence in a general sense.  There are ones on domestic violence, homicides, gang violence,  mass shootings, serial killers, youth violence etc. That's a lot to wade through


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 29, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I totally get what you are saying but I think you are looking at it through an outdated lens.  Modern Psychology, Neuroscience and many in the growing field of evolutionary psychology look at it like this.
> 
> There are biological components.  The lymbic system, the fight or flight response etc.  This provides the physiological foundation on how/why conflict occurrs. But that is largely the limit of what evolution has brought us because of the impact our cognitive abilities provide vs other animals.
> 
> ...


I don't know that any of this necessarily contradicts his model. He is using simplified explanations, leaving out causality - a reasonable omission since he's not trying to solve the issue of violence, rather trying to understand/explain the difference between approaches to violence. So there may be some technical conflicts between our current knowledge and this model, but I don't know that they are problems for the model, unless you see something there I don't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 29, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> The above being said, a dominance heirarchy (which is actually covered extensively in the overarching concept of toxic masculinity) is indeed a driving force of violence, even if you look at aggressive competitions.  The only contention I have, unless I misunderstood, is I believe you see that as a product of human evolution of man whereas modern science sees it as a product of the contemporary environment the subject is raised in, or the "reprogramming" that may be done via intensive training or traumatic incidents.


I don't think a dominance hierarchy is a unique characteristic of masculinity. It happens throughout our society, in all subgroups and demographic divisions. It is true that the concept of toxic masculinity includes an overemphasis on dominance - it is the overemphasis that is key to that concept.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 29, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i will have to spend some time reading on "toxic masculinity"  so i can have a logical debate on this.  we may be saying the same thing.


It's a different approach to dominance. I think there may be an inherent confusion in your model, because the Primal hierarchy you put forth is almost a subset of the Dominance hierarchy. It could be argued the whole thing is a dominance hierarchy, with two subsets, one of which is the Primal hierarchy. I think what I'm saying is that the term Dominance may be confusing. Ponder on it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 29, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Well, I would argue that "dominance", in a sociological and psychological perspective, is a negative and/or toxic trait in a civilized and cooperative society under the rule of law.
> 
> Dominance is not simply controlling a particular situation, it is about consistent and knowing control over others, against their will, in an overall heirarchy. It is domineering in nature.  So where a gang member may be using violence as a tool of control over the shopkeeper on his "turf" (dominance) the shopkeeper, if he uses violence to defend himself against said gang member, would be using it simply to protect himself and regain his own agency.
> 
> Dominance in short is controlling a hierarchy through some sort of force whether by political force, violence, psychological force, economic force. In short the person who is dominant creates, through his dominance, someone who is oppressed.  You can have control of a heirarchy however without dominance, allowing those underneath you to maintain their own agency (within limits agreed to by society).  This kind of power can occur in a democratic system, collectivization, a job market where people apply for where they wish to work vs being an indentured servant or an outright slave etc.


This depends how we define "dominance". In a business group, if I am the most knowledgeable and well-spoken (and outspoken) member of the group, I'm likely to have dominance in that situation/topic among the group. That dominance may pass from person to person as the need/topic changes. The toxic situation would be if I were the manager and refused to pass that dominance to a subject matter expert when in their area of expertise, simply because I outrank them on the org chart.

Perhaps it's a terminology issue, again?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 29, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> The problem on the Psychology side is that for actual referenced quantitative studies there is little on violence in a general sense. There are ones on domestic violence, homicides, gang violence, mass shootings, serial killers, youth violence etc. That's a lot to wade through


This, I think, is one of those areas where Psychology may never be able to produce quantitative studies on a large enough scale. The boundaries around what constitutes "violence" for the purpose of the study tend to move quite easily - Do we include self-defense? What if it's someone who tends to instigate, but not initiate violence? At what age do we start? What neurological conditions make an individual unsuitable for inclusion? And then we get into trying to control all the variables from the other side: abuse history, parenting style, ethnic customs, exposure to witnessed violence, education, poverty, social norms in their subgroup, etc. When you have overly-flexible boundaries, combined with the number of variables inherent in psychological studies, things just get gooey.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't know that any of this necessarily contradicts his model. He is using simplified explanations, leaving out causality - a reasonable omission since he's not trying to solve the issue of violence, rather trying to understand/explain the difference between approaches to violence. So there may be some technical conflicts between our current knowledge and this model, but I don't know that they are problems for the model, unless you see something there I don't.



I do think a fair amount of the issues we're semantics and my tending to look deeper at the issue in terms of cause and prevention as an occupational hazard.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This, I think, is one of those areas where Psychology may never be able to produce quantitative studies on a large enough scale. The boundaries around what constitutes "violence" for the purpose of the study tend to move quite easily - Do we include self-defense? What if it's someone who tends to instigate, but not initiate violence? At what age do we start? What neurological conditions make an individual unsuitable for inclusion? And then we get into trying to control all the variables from the other side: abuse history, parenting style, ethnic customs, exposure to witnessed violence, education, poverty, social norms in their subgroup, etc. When you have overly-flexible boundaries, combined with the number of variables inherent in psychological studies, things just get gooey.



Yes I think that issue, along with Psychology having a goal to address the violence contribute to the break down.  Addressing a batterer is different than addressing a violent gang member in many was, as one example.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think a dominance hierarchy is a unique characteristic of masculinity. It happens throughout our society, in all subgroups and demographic divisions. It is true that the concept of toxic masculinity includes an overemphasis on dominance - it is the overemphasis that is key to that concept.



It's not BUT it is more common among men, at least in Western society simply due to sterotypes of what a "real man" is.  I would argue however that while there are women who use violence for dominance, that is a rarity where as statistics show that men are more likely to use violence as a tool of dominance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 29, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> It's not BUT it is more common among men, at least in Western society simply due to sterotypes of what a "real man" is.  I would argue however that while there are women who use violence for dominance, that is a rarity where as statistics show that men are more likely to use violence as a tool of dominance.


Agreed. I think “dominance by violence” is mostly going to fall under the OP’s Primal hierarchy.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This depends how we define "dominance". In a business group, if I am the most knowledgeable and well-spoken (and outspoken) member of the group, I'm likely to have dominance in that situation/topic among the group. That dominance may pass from person to person as the need/topic changes. The toxic situation would be if I were the manager and refused to pass that dominance to a subject matter expert when in their area of expertise, simply because I outrank them on the org chart.
> 
> Perhaps it's a terminology issue, again?



I think we could apply toxic to any character trait taken too far. We could also suggest there is a benevolent masculinity.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 29, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> It's not BUT it is more common among men, at least in Western society simply due to sterotypes of what a "real man" is.  I would argue however that while there are women who use violence for dominance, that is a rarity where as statistics show that men are more likely to use violence as a tool of dominance.



Is that including mums smacking kids?


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Is that including mums smacking kids?



Not necessarily, but it can.  A parent who is engaging in child abuse would be engaging in such an act.  The short form, at least in psychology, is that dominance is about using power to get something for yourself at the expense of another.  So in the case of an abusive parent they may simply want "control", cathartic release etc.  However if the "smack" is done when subjectively appropriate (and not causing actual injury) to correct a dangerous or antisocial behavior it would not be considered as being an act of dominance.  Now of course there are people in the field who believe any Corporal punishment of a child is potentially damaging, but that is an entirely different topic.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I think we could apply toxic to any character trait taken too far. We could also suggest there is a benevolent masculinity.



Well there is.  The idea of toxic masculinity isn't to attack masculinity in general, "normal" masculinity is perfectly fine.  Some elements are beneficial, others neutral, just like anything else in life. Basically the people who study this stuff just see "masculinity" (good) and "toxic masculinity" (bad).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I think we could apply toxic to any character trait taken too far. We could also suggest there is a benevolent masculinity.


An example might be self-reliance. Some is good. In the extreme, it is bad. So if a cultural model of masculinity encourages moderate self-reliance, that is good. If it encourages it in the extreme, that becomes toxic. 

The same would be true of a cultural mode of femininity.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 12, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> good observations.  modern hierarchy based on power sounds correct.  but i think they are both based on power.   the difference is what constitutes the power?  in the primal model it is physical presence and strenght  in the modern model it  is money and social structure.


Interesting topic. The dominant need to procreate is a factor. As a rule, is pack society the strongest leads, not just to perception of strength. I believe it is evident the maturation process for humans is quite long, partly simply because adversity and necessity is typically reducing every generation. Aged adults exceed the instinctual "need" to be aggressive. That said, I do not think it never fully leaves; repressed yes, but completely gone, no. There are so many external influencers (society, culture, drugs, etc...) who really knows how we tick?


----------

