E
EASTEUROPID
Guest
Destroy your computer and move to Sudan. :grin:
Sudan is too dry. I will move to Amazon jungle and eat monkeys
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Destroy your computer and move to Sudan. :grin:
I saw that movie the other day, it was great. That's a good point. Over aggression is a lack of discipline. Humans actually became more proficient at violence through "self-domestication", because discipline and cooperation, led to armies.Those are all very helpful insights.
A silly example, I know, but your post prompted me to look back on my recent viewing of the latest Martin Scorsese film, "The Irishman". The "mob" culture is built on violence and intimidation as well as manipulation of man's baser instincts and desires no matter the ethnic group involved. Yet even in that culture the overly aggressive and reckless are ostracized and even killed eventually. That's why "Crazy Joe" Gallo was gunned down in a restaurant in downtown New York. It happened to many others. They endanger the group. The characters even used your word to describe him: hothead.
The ones who survived into old age were the calm, controlled, even icy ones.
:mask::17::belial:Sudan is too dry. I will move to Amazon jungle and eat monkeys
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRz8uERFQ2g:mask::17::belial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRz8uERFQ2gThat probably deserves a second think: that's probably how HIV spread from monkeys to humans.
Primates are dangerous even when they don't attack you.
Those are all very helpful insights.
A silly example, I know, but your post prompted me to look back on my recent viewing of the latest Martin Scorsese film, "The Irishman". The "mob" culture is built on violence and intimidation as well as manipulation of man's baser instincts and desires no matter the ethnic group involved. Yet even in that culture the overly aggressive and reckless are ostracized and even killed eventually. That's why "Crazy Joe" Gallo was gunned down in a restaurant in downtown New York. It happened to many others. They endanger the group. The characters even used your word to describe him: hothead.
The ones who survived into old age were the calm, controlled, even icy ones.
Unfortunately, because of my career, I've been around more than my fair share of really violent men. Seeing the aftermatch is horrifying, and disturbing, but to see it in action is also frightening as hell. There's nothing glamorous or attractive about it.
I've only ever seen my husband in a fight twice. Once was because someone started bothering me in the street. It was Mardis Gras, we'd been diverted to New Orleans, you can guess the rest. Another time I was picking him up from his summer job on a construction site and he was fighting some idiot who had started up with him because he was the boss' soon to be son-in-law. I absolutely hated it. All of a sudden it was as if I didn't know him. Don't get me wrong: he wasn't the type to get into fights on a regular basis. He said that even growing up in a rough neighborhood other guys didn't mess with him because he was always big for his age, a football player and wrestler, etc., but he'd had to deal with situations like that from time to time.
Yet, in much of the world, and even here in the U.S. in some areas what is upsetting for us is the norm. People see violence every day. That's what I think of when I see the newsreels and photos: how must it have felt, how often did they have nightmares about it, how many people's lives are permanently scarred by it.
So, I'm all for domestication. Yes, you should be able to defend yourself if necessary, but it shouldn't be necessary, and people, usually men, who get off on violent confrontation are a danger to themselves and the community as a whole.
I think women doing the mate selection is one way, providing, of course, that they actually select for more passive, less aggressive men. Some women wouldn't. I wouldn't, for one. I'm not saying I'd want Charles Bronson or "The Rock", but I wouldn't choose Alan Alda or Woody Allen, either.
Only in a peaceful, relatively prosperous era could I see that ever being possible.
As for how it happened in the past, could greater attrition among aggressive, violent, men have been a factor?
I saw that movie the other day, it was great. That's a good point. Over aggression is a lack of discipline. Humans actually became more proficient at violence through "self-domestication", because discipline and cooperation, led to armies.
While this is getting off the point, I'm fascinated by the idealization of the mother in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. And this was a two-way street . . . Douglas MacArthur's mother took an apartment near West Point so she could look into her son's room at the Point throughout his time there.
I don't think any of this survives today. I suppose pretty much everyone loves their mother, but love their wife or husband more. Has anyone ever looked into this deification of mothers and what it meant?
An excellent book on the topic of this thread is "The Goodness Paradox" (2019) by Richard Wrangham. He makes a distinction between reactive aggression, which declined with self-domestication, and proactive aggression. He contends that the human capacity for coalitionary proactive aggression, such as organized warfare, increased with self-domestication.
Wrangham favours the execution of reactively violent males by their social group as the selective force behind human domestication. In my view he dismisses mate selection as a selective force too quickly, but I recommend his book. Wrangham is also quoted in the first link in this thread.
This thread has been viewed 18124 times.