Phyc theory on fighting VS self defence

[drop bear]

I totally get what you are saying but I think you are looking at it through an outdated lens.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]

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]

I totally get what you are saying but I think you are looking at it through an outdated lens.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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?