A piece of Darwinian theory, which I have not finished reading, and am posting here chiefly to remind me to get back to it. It may be of interest to many of you, too.
Fascinating stuff, and right in my wheelhouse. I loved the quote "This is a perennial objection to one or another aspect of evolutionary theory: it has no business being true, so it isn’t." Violence isn't the only aspect of human beings that comes under that, and possible genetic causes are controversial in all of them. So of course they have to backpedal immediately and say Sure we found this evolutionary stuff, but it's complicated. Culture's in there too. Genes and culture, just common sense. Mostly culture, actually. Don't accuse us of thinking it's genes very much, because then we get attacked at conferences and our careers are over.
While one might say that there's plenty of reactive violence still around, that may only be in comparison to other periods. As for warfare, the idea that low-level conflict of small tribes with few casualties means less death in war is not accurate. If one has a band of a hundred which has some spear-throwing conflict with lots of posturing every other year with only one or two killed, that adds up over time to way more people killed in battle than modern warfare.
I also looked wryly at the phrase "annexation of females." Is that what the kids are calling it now?
It turns out the campus annexation-of-females culture has deep roots.
Actually I'm surprised the New Yorker printed this; it's laced all through with heresy. But I popped right over to Audible and pre-ordered a copy for its release date next week. The thesis lines up with much of what we've been reading for some time about game theory: there are rewards to acting like a jerk, but there's also the reaction of other players, who may band together to throw you off a cliff if your nuisance value gets too high. And then you get the whole problem of whether the judgment of people banding together is really all that reliable, either. There doesn't seem to be any solution that allows individuals to escape the personal of social consequences of either exercising poor independent judgment or lending their support to poor group judgments. You have to cooperate AND exercise good personal choices.
I am always struck by the discussion of evolution using polarities of actions and effects. I find most things happen along a continuum and not as an either-or. The continuum of the twin processes of evolution are cooperation and competition ever since the first two single cells joined to be more competitive. Then evolution added specialization and society with the specialization of cells to the cooperation between individuals of social orders.
From the article I did not find consideration of inner city gangs and crime mobs; ghettos and no-go-zones or the institutionalization of proactive/reactive violence in sports and competitive clubs (bridge clubs etc.)and even business. (war is not the only violence/aggression -- cooperation/competitiveness in the human psyche) Maybe the new book authors do include those manifestations.
3 comments:
Fascinating stuff, and right in my wheelhouse. I loved the quote "This is a perennial objection to one or another aspect of evolutionary theory: it has no business being true, so it isn’t." Violence isn't the only aspect of human beings that comes under that, and possible genetic causes are controversial in all of them. So of course they have to backpedal immediately and say Sure we found this evolutionary stuff, but it's complicated. Culture's in there too. Genes and culture, just common sense. Mostly culture, actually. Don't accuse us of thinking it's genes very much, because then we get attacked at conferences and our careers are over.
While one might say that there's plenty of reactive violence still around, that may only be in comparison to other periods. As for warfare, the idea that low-level conflict of small tribes with few casualties means less death in war is not accurate. If one has a band of a hundred which has some spear-throwing conflict with lots of posturing every other year with only one or two killed, that adds up over time to way more people killed in battle than modern warfare.
I also looked wryly at the phrase "annexation of females." Is that what the kids are calling it now?
It turns out the campus annexation-of-females culture has deep roots.
Actually I'm surprised the New Yorker printed this; it's laced all through with heresy. But I popped right over to Audible and pre-ordered a copy for its release date next week. The thesis lines up with much of what we've been reading for some time about game theory: there are rewards to acting like a jerk, but there's also the reaction of other players, who may band together to throw you off a cliff if your nuisance value gets too high. And then you get the whole problem of whether the judgment of people banding together is really all that reliable, either. There doesn't seem to be any solution that allows individuals to escape the personal of social consequences of either exercising poor independent judgment or lending their support to poor group judgments. You have to cooperate AND exercise good personal choices.
I am always struck by the discussion of evolution using polarities of actions and effects. I find most things happen along a continuum and not as an either-or. The continuum of the twin processes of evolution are cooperation and competition ever since the first two single cells joined to be more competitive. Then evolution added specialization and society with the specialization of cells to the cooperation between individuals of social orders.
From the article I did not find consideration of inner city gangs and crime mobs; ghettos and no-go-zones or the institutionalization of proactive/reactive violence in sports and competitive clubs (bridge clubs etc.)and even business. (war is not the only violence/aggression -- cooperation/competitiveness in the human psyche) Maybe the new book authors do include those manifestations.
Post a Comment