Violence

[RexNecros]

James W. Prescott a psychologist whose research focus on the origins of violence. He argues that violence firstly comes from lack of nurture, violence and most importantly lack of mother-bonding during infancy. Secondly he says that violence also originates from sexual repression, especially during adolescence.

http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html
and...
http://www.violence.de/prescott/trut.../monogamy.html

His work was done in an anthropological level, meaning he examined societies during human history and non-human societies as well.

There is an interesting argument against Prescott idea stating that history tells otherwise about the destructive nature of patriarchalism has indeed proved to be the most successful one.

http://www.violence.de/arguments/index.html

Discuss…

[wilpuri]

Hm... Why is this in the history section?

[RexNecros]

Well, because the argument uses history as an example, atlhough you are probably right...

[antaeus]

maybe we need to alter the name of the history section to 'history and anthropology'

i think it would be nice to increase the scope of discussions to include a more fundamental human element.

[RexNecros]

Thank you. By the way, why hasn't anyone really posted anything about thread?

[Kscott]

Ive went over this, and I think the ethos is the best place for this as it is more about the origins of human violence, which seemingly fits perfectly in the ethos. Yes their will be some historical overlap, but their is no problem having some history parts in the ethos.

In other words, moved


On topic, Id say violence stems from genetics and a bad enviroment at home that encourages violence.

[Count of Montesano]

There may be some truth to his theories on the individual level but I'm not sure his studies go far enough to explain mass violence like war. I was reading a book called "Constant Battles: Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage" that talked about how war has always been used as a survival tool for humans. Primitive societies often lost as much as 30 percent of their populations due to warfare - a death rate is actually far higher than most modern wars. I think humans are just beginning to cope with an era of abundant resources where widespread cooperation across cultures is more important than attacking the next door neighbors for whatever you need.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031...lance&n=283155

[Jesus The Inane]

What type of violence? Violence against other humans beings, or violence in general? I mean, in order to hunt, we had to be violent by our own nature.

Plus, are not childs violent and selfish by nature?

[Last Roman]

I think it is the flight or fight response. Violence is part of human nature. But I agree that a person can become more violent if brought up in a violent enviornment

[RexNecros]

Count of Montesano

There may be some truth to his theories on the individual level but I'm not sure his studies go far enough to explain mass violence like war. I was reading a book called "Constant Battles: Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage" that talked about how war has always been used as a survival tool for humans. Primitive societies often lost as much as 30 percent of their populations due to warfare - a death rate is actually far higher than most modern wars. I think humans are just beginning to cope with an era of abundant resources where widespread cooperation across cultures is more important than attacking the next door neighbors for whatever you need.

Jesus The Inane

What type of violence? Violence against other humans beings, or violence in general? I mean, in order to hunt, we had to be violent by our own nature.

Plus, are not childs violent and selfish by nature?

Last Roman

I think it is the flight or fight response. Violence is part of human nature. But I agree that a person can become more violent if brought up in a violent environment

Montesano:
I think he talks in an anthropological level (At least is mention his studies are based in societies in general not individuals). What you do mention is partly a counter-argument against his theory (the counter-argument implies that the most successful societies have been in part violent one, the ones that embrace violence like chivalry and deprive human sexuality while the ones in which sexuality is/was not repressed are/were less successful)
Jesus the inane:
I think he mentions violence against humans, I also think that many humans don’t worry too much about violence against other animals (I mean most people do, but not in a human-to-human level)
Last Roman:
I think he talks about a more violent society; he thinks that in a society in which the mother-bonding is encouraged less or just simply doesn’t happen and/or sexuality is a taboo, societies tend to be more violent that the ones who don’t.