Violence

[HopAlongBunny]

Is the belief we can control violence w/o abolishing it simply a delusion?

Perhaps violence is simply part of what we are; the idea that we can control it like geo-thermal energy: tap it when we "need" it and control it/turn it off; is our best self-deception.

What if its more like a tornado. Once in motion it has its own momentum, goals and "desires"; quite independent of the wishes/aims of its author.

[Fragony]

Violence is ok, I will never provoke it but will react with it if someone pushes me too much. You don't die from a broken nose or a few bruised ribs. We are too feminised as a society when it comes to using blunt tools

[Fisherking]

Violence?

How are you going to abolish it without eliminating life? Predators are violent. Even herbivores can be violent. Emotionally charged people may commit it.

If you are talking about eliminating violence committed by people, it will always be with us.

I suppose it could be reduced by sedating the population but it will not eliminate it.

Some people will always try to prey on others and people will sometimes react violently in stressful situations. Fight or flight is the natural reaction to such situations.

[Raz]

What if its more like a tornado. Once in motion it has its own momentum, goals and "desires"; quite independent of the wishes/aims of its author.

I think violence is more of a method (or a 'tool') to meet a particular goal. The way you've described it here makes it seem like violence is an emotion in itself (or something like that), which doesn't make much sense to me. Violence tends to be a method to satisfy some desire (such as anger etc), and it's this desire that can garner its own momentum.
When the method changes (say, instead of punching someone in the face, you send them an angry email (lol!)) the desire can still get out of hand (so you send dozens of angry emails escalating to vitriolic diatribe after a while).

imo, i think. i dunno, i'm kinda sleepy tbh and I'm not sure if this is very coherent.

[Fragony]

It isn't really a good movie, but 'Equilibrium' is a fun take on a lack of it. Also some amazing action.

OT people are just naturally violent. When social skills just won't suffice it's the only option.

I don't know if it was ever translated in English but 'Van nature goed' by Frank de Waal is fascinating

edit, it wasn't, that's a shame. It is a really good book. It examins how violence and empathy exist in our social behaviour by mostly looking at the behaviour of primates.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Violence is just a response to feeling threatened. I haven't read it, but there is a book by Steven Pinker called "The Better Angels of Our Nature" and he did a similar TED talk about the subject which is how I know a little bit about what the book says. And basically he argues that violence has continued to decline worldwide over the past few centuries at least with a small hiccup in the middle of the 20th century. I recommend watching the TED talk because it seems to me that violence will continue to decline as long as our current world trend of globalization and industrialization increases the living standards of people in the 2nd and 3rd world.

[Fragony]

Violence is just a response to feeling threatened.

Dominant people are also more violent, response to feeling threatened is only half of the story, there has to be someone threatening you to respond to. It's a shame that 'Van Nature Goed' was never translated as it could add a lot to the discussion if you read it. Key is instrumental empathy or a lack of it according to De Waal, it is in end a result of social hierarchy. It isn't without any critisism but I found it pretty convincing

[HoreTore]

Violence is a result of outside factors, not an innate tendency of humans.

Thus, it can be greatly reduced and ultimately removed.

[Fragony]

Violence is a result of outside factors, not an innate tendency of humans.

Thus, it can be greatly reduced and ultimately removed.

What makes you think so, if I am rude to you here it's also an act of violence in a way. No matter how much control you have, violence will exist. Don't hurt me and don't feel hurt because I don't mean any harm, but isn't the massacre on that island a bit of a result of trying to control an unnatural situation

[a completely inoffensive name]

Dominant people are also more violent, response to feeling threatened is only half of the story, there has to be someone threatening you to respond to.

Not necessarily. Feeling threatened isn't exactly the same as being threatened. You can feel threatened by someone or something and the other party actually has no malice towards you. It's tied to jealousy and insecurity which like I said become less and less prevalent in the world of the plenty.

[HoreTore]

What makes you think so, if I am rude to you here it's also an act of violence in a way. No matter how much control you have, violence will exist. Don't hurt me and don't feel hurt because I don't mean any harm, but isn't the massacre on that island a bit of a result of trying to control an unnatural situation

You do recognize a variation in the level of aggression in different societies, don't you frags?

If aggression "comes from within", wouldn't we all be equally aggressive?

[Fragony]

Not necessarily. Feeling threatened isn't exactly the same as being threatened. You can feel threatened by someone or something and the other party actually has no malice towards you. It's tied to jealousy and insecurity which like I said become less and less prevalent in the world of the plenty.

We call it 'de apenrots' (monkey rock) over here, it has more to do with social hierarchy that comes in effect. Dominant people aka alpha-males will use violence if their place on the rock is being overly challenged because they don't want to sit anywhere lower. Those that sit lower will still want to stay there.

[Fragony]

You do recognize a variation in the level of aggression in different societies, don't you frags?

If aggression "comes from within", wouldn't we all be equally aggressive?

Look up the Milgram or Asch experiments, those who participated were all normal people, at first

[HoreTore]

Look up the Milgram or Asch experiments, those who participated were all normal people, at first

I don't have to look up something I know by heart, Frags

And how did Milgram prove innate aggression? What he did was severely alter outside factors, and it was the outside factors he introduced which lead to the indefference to suffering.

[Fragony]

I don't have to look up something I know by heart, Frags

And how did Milgram prove innate aggression? What he did was severely alter outside factors, and it was the outside factors he introduced which lead to the indefference to suffering.

Diffusion of responsibility, people will do the most horrible things to eachother if they aren't directly responsible. Motivation for experiments was nazi death-camps, how otherwise perfectly normal people could commit the worst of atrocities when told to do so. In the Milgram experiment most people would give an electrical shock of which they knew could be lethal, the Asch guards vs prisoners experiment showed pretty much the same

[HoreTore]

Diffusion of responsibility, people will do the most horrible things to eachother if they aren't directly responsible. Motivation for experiments was nazi death-camps, how otherwise perfectly normal people could commit the worst of atrocities when told to do so. In the Milgram experiment most people would give an electrical shock of which they knew could be lethal, the Asch guards vs prisoners experiment showed pretty much the same

....And that's an outside factor, frags

[Montmorency]

If aggression were not innate, no combination of "outside factors" would be able to induce it.

C.f.: 'Digestion is a result of such outside factors as food, not an innate tendency of humans.

Thus, it can be greatly reduced and ultimately removed.'

[Fragony]

....And that's an outside factor, frags

Not really, it's stimulation of what is already there, wouldn't call it outside factors as it just shows what we are inherently capable of.

[HoreTore]

Not really, it's stimulation of what is already there, wouldn't call it outside factors as it just shows what we are inherently capable of.

Ah, but then it will still need those outside factors for the aggression to show, eh?

In order words, the outside factors an individual is exposed to will determine its level of aggression?

[Fragony]

Ah, but then it will still need those outside factors for the aggression to show, eh?

In order words, the outside factors an individual is exposed to will determine its level of aggression?

Point is that it is already there, subdued, but there. People will do horrible things when they are not directly responsible for their actions, aggression against others is a natural state of mind when you let it

[a completely inoffensive name]

If aggression were not innate, no combination of "outside factors" would be able to induce it.

C.f.: 'Digestion is a result of such outside factors as food, not an innate tendency of humans.

Thus, it can be greatly reduced and ultimately removed.'

Interesting comparison. Is the act of violence tied to some necessary biological function in the way that eating is?

[HoreTore]

Point is that it is already there, subdued, but there. People will do horrible things when they are not directly responsible for their actions, aggression against others is a natural state of mind when you let it

Then you are already a believer of violence in society as a consequence of a set of factors, rather than as something that must always be present

Just wait Frags, I'll make a good commie of you eventually!

[Fragony]

Then you are already a believer of violence in society as a consequence of a set of factors, rather than as something that must always be present

Just wait Frags, I'll make a good commie of you eventually!

Heh nice try, it are outside factors that can bring it out, there is not a word on effectively subduing it

Edit, I am lying here, Frans de Waal latest does, but I haven't read it. It wasn't very well recieved so I didn't bother, AdrianII liked it

[HoreTore]

Heh nice try, it are outside factors that can bring it out, there is not a word on effectively subduing it

Edit, I am lying here, Frans de Waal latest does, but I haven't read it. It wasn't very well recieved so I didn't bother, AdrianII liked it

Marvin Harris also explains social phenomena as a result of ecology instead of biology, and his writing style is pretty fun as well, you should check it out

Back on topic, if outside factors can increase aggression/violence, then it stands to reason that a change in those factors can also serve to reduce it, doesn't it?

And if a set of factors can result in permanent war, then another set of factors which brings permanent peace must exist, right?

[Montmorency]

Is the act of violence

We were talking specifically about aggression, no? Aggression is not equivalent to violence, just as violence is not equivalent to death.

Physiological arousal.

In order words, the outside factors an individual is exposed to, mediated by individual neurophysiology will determine its level of aggression?

Then you are already a believer of violence in society as a consequence of a set of factors, rather than as something that must always be present

The release of gastric acids, a component of the digestive process: how do you remove all factors that contribute to the stimulation of the Vagus nerve, as well as the lesser components of digestion? How is it possible to eliminate every stimulus that engenders even the thought of food, which is even so enough stimulation?

And if a set of factors can result in permanent war, then another set of factors which brings permanent peace must exist, right?

What set of factors can result in permanent war? The problem here is that we're talking about humans, not some mythical - actually, Strike has given me an idea:

It's like you construct humans in your head and go no further.

[Fragony]

Back on topic, if outside factors can increase aggression/violence, then it stands to reason that a change in those factors can also serve to reduce it, doesn't it?

And if a set of factors can result in permanent war, then another set of factors which brings permanent peace must exist, right?

Not if you consider violence to be a part of human nature, if you subdue a part of human nature what remains? Things don't have to be perfect, being flawed is perfectly fine for me.

[HoreTore]

Both Milgram and the Stanley prison experiment produced a state I would deem "permanent war", as would their inspiration, the concentration camp guards.

Or if you want an example from anthropology, the Yanomamo tribe fits the bill.

[HoreTore]

Not if you consider violence to be a part of human nature, if you subdue a part of human nature what remains? Things don't have to be perfect, being flawed is perfectly fine for me.

And if you go down that part, how can you then explains different levels of violence/aggression in different societies, or differences in one society in different times?

[a completely inoffensive name]

We were talking specifically about aggression, no? Aggression is not equivalent to violence, just as violence is not equivalent to death.

Physiological arousal.

I am just going off of the OP which uses the word violence. You may have something there about arousal though.

[HopAlongBunny]

I liked the comparison to "digestion".

The expression of violence sets in motion biological/cultural/psychological factors. These work, independent of the originator of the violence. Like "digestion", a whole range of responses are set in motion; the responses also may have little to nothing to do with the original source. People will react; exchanging violence for violence; make alliances; retreat; plot vengeance; even ignore the event as far as possible. So the initial act, once done, can set in motion many things I have no control over; in what way does the author "control" the violence?