Human Self-domestication

We may be less aggressive than, say, Chimps, but with some people not by all that much, imho.

Didn't Jane Goodall show that chimps made war? I believe she saw this when a large chimp group broke in two, followed by the larger group attacking, and killing some number of the smaller group.
 
Didn't Jane Goodall show that chimps made war? I believe she saw this when a large chimp group broke in two, followed by the larger group attacking, and killing some number of the smaller group.

That's right.

"Ever since primatologist Jane Goodall’s pioneering work at Gombe Stream National Park in Tanzania in the 1970s, researchers have been aware that male chimps often organize themselves into warring gangs that raid each other’s territory, sometimes leaving mutilated dead bodies on the battlefield."

See:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/09/why-do-chimps-kill-each-other

Of course, the "usual suspects" say it only happens because humans are encroaching on their territory. Well, humans have encroached on the territory of most animals, but they don't react like this. Not even all "apes" react like this.


"
The researchers created a series of computer models to test whether the observed killings could be better explained by adaptive strategies or human impacts. The models incorporated variables such as whether the animals had been fed by humans, the size of their territory (smaller territories presumably corresponding to greater human encroachment), and other indicators of human disturbance, all of which were assumed to be related to human impacts; and variables such as the geographic location of the animals, the number of adult males, and the population density of the animals, which the team considered more likely to be related to adaptive strategies.Online today in Nature, the team reports that the models that best explained the data were those that assumed the killings were related to adaptive strategies, which in statistical terms were nearly seven times as strongly supported as models that assumed human impacts were mostly responsible. For example, 63% of the fallen warriors were attacked by animals from outside their own in-group, supporting, the authors say, previous evidence that chimps in particular band together to fight other groups for territory, food, and mates. Moreover, males were responsible for 92% of all attacks, confirming earlier hypotheses that warfare is a way for males to spread their genes. In contrast, the team concludes, none of the factors related to human impacts correlated with the amount of warfare observed.
The study also confirmed earlier evidence that bonobos are, relatively speaking, more peaceful than their chimpanzee cousins. Although fewer bonobo groups were included in the study, the researchers observed only one suspected killing among that species, at Lomako—a site where animals have not been fed by humans and disturbance by human activity has been judged to be low."

They also kill infant chimpanzees not fathered by themselves.

I've always felt that if you want to know what the human "Id" looks like, watch chimpanzees.
 
Domestication is in some ways a process of extended infantilization. Adult dogs, for example, retain wolf puppy behaviours such as jumping up and trying to lick the faces of their owners when they return home. Wolf puppies do this to their returning parents to encourage them to feed them regurgitated food. Domesticated dogs retain playful and submissive puppy-like behaviours all their lives.

In his book "The Eternal Child", Clive Bromhall suggests that humans have self-domesticated themselves by a similar process of infantilization. To quote "Like baby chimps we have soft downy bodies, flat faces and large rounded heads. Like them we too want to be kissed, cuddled and stroked, and we remain playful, compliant and relatively mild-mannered for the whole of our lives".

Some might say that this process continues unabated in modern societies, aided by the internet and other modern technology. Your phone can now remind you to brush your teeth, tell you to take an umbrella when rain is forecast, suggest your lunch, suggest the movie you should watch tonight, or which video game you should play, and remind you that your mother's birthday is tomorrow. Governments increasingly give you advice about your health and safety, like a concerned parent.

We are less violent than chimpanzees on average (even if we can all think of counter-examples), and this tendency also seems to be continuing. Believe it or not, a randomly selected global citizen in the 21st century probably has less chance of being murdered, killed in warfare, or killed by their own government than at any time in world history (or pre-history).
 
Tamakore: I agree with your comments, but I think we should keep separate those physiological changes that have occurred evolutionarily (is that a word?) over a great span of years and the behavioral changes (extended childhood for example) we've seen developing since, say, the end of WWII, that are the result of access to modern devices (internet, etc.). The latter would, conceivably, disappear if the devices did.

I'm still unclear, however, on how self domestication works. Dogs are the way they are because 'we' specifically bred them that way. Today we want puppy-like dogs so we select for that characteristic. Can our natural wild human characteristics be bred out simply by moving to a settled lifestyle? How exactly would the more aggressive wild humans be forced out of the gene pool? I can't see the mechanism.
 
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?
 
Angela: I can only guess (thinking out loud here) that the driver had to do with the consequences of aggressive behavior in different eras. During the Paleolithic over aggressive behavior might have bad results (the Mastodon might win), but over passive behavior always resulted in starvation (a hunter has to take chances to make a kill). During the Neolithic the aggressive men would still rise to the top of the hierarchy, and have their choice of mates (including multiple ones), but passive men could feed their families even if they weren't willing to put their life on the line to do it (there is little or no danger in growing wheat). And, aggressive men would still suffer for their aggression in wars and conflicts with other powerful, aggressive men. Over time the timid would inherit the world.

I guess I can sum up my theory, if it rates such a word, in that keeping your head down worked as a strategy only as people settled and we created a better organized, safer society. In our very safe era I can say that I've never had to confront a situation in which my life or well being was threatened (even though I spent a career in the military). The closest I ever got was in college. A seminar I was in adjourned to a local tavern and while we discussed airy-fairy concepts over a beer, there was a sudden fight at the bar with one man losing dramatically and being drug out and thrown into the street. That's it, the closest I've gotten.
 
Angela: I can only guess (thinking out loud here) that the driver had to do with the consequences of aggressive behavior in different eras. During the Paleolithic over aggressive behavior might have bad results (the Mastodon might win), but over passive behavior always resulted in starvation (a hunter has to take chances to make a kill). During the Neolithic the aggressive men would still rise to the top of the hierarchy, and have their choice of mates (including multiple ones), but passive men could feed their families even if they weren't willing to put their life on the line to do it (there is little or no danger in growing wheat). And, aggressive men would still suffer for their aggression in wars and conflicts with other powerful, aggressive men. Over time the timid would inherit the world.

I guess I can sum up my theory, if it rates such a word, in that keeping your head down worked as a strategy only as people settled and we created a better organized, safer society. In our very safe era I can say that I've never had to confront a situation in which my life or well being was threatened (even though I spent a career in the military). The closest I ever got was in college. A seminar I was in adjourned to a local tavern and while we discussed airy-fairy concepts over a beer, there was a sudden fight at the bar with one man losing dramatically and being drug out and thrown into the street. That's it, the closest I've gotten.

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.
 
Stupidity! The little guy from min 1.30-2.47 probably felt inferior.

I don't think it's just a Y chromosome problem ... Sometimes ... but maybe quite often ... women feel in the position of that little guy and acts like him...
 
Last edited:
Easteuropid: While I don't like the idea of being "domesticated," despite the fact that my wife would say I was, as used here it means willing and able to live together in peace. I find it hard to hate that. Note too that domesticated dogs, Dobermans for instance, are quite effective at being guard dogs so being domesticated doesn't mean we have to be easy marks.

I'm willing to believe you meant something else. A joke perhaps? One of the problems with written communications is that it's difficult to signal the ha ha moment.
 
Scuze mosilor... dar pare ca sunt munte de multzi cretini pe forumul asta care stau in asteptare ca si euro...pizda masii asta.
I-am asteptat pe americani 45 de ani pe aci... si uite ce saracie de lux!:useless: Asta da VIOLENȚĂ!
Stiti la ce nivel este saracia in afara ?
 
Last edited:
How exactly would the more aggressive wild humans be forced out of the gene pool? I can't see the mechanism.

One possible mechanism is that the most aggressive individuals, particularly those who were violent for no apparent reason, would become so unpopular within the social group that they would be ostracised and forced to leave the group. After that, the odds of surviving alone in an environment such as the African savannah would be low.

There would have been leadership contests within social groups, but as those groups got bigger and more socially cohesive, the winner of the contest was perhaps less likely to be the most violent one and more likely to be the one who gathered the biggest coalition of supporters, in other words, the one who was best at making friends. Leaders were more likely to have reproductive success.

Mate selection, as Angela wrote, is another mechanism. Humans are unique among great apes in reproducing through pair bonding and parental care by both parents. This change probably happened more than 600,000 years ago, but with the increasing complexity of culture and language in modern humans, the nurturing and mentoring qualities of good fathers and mothers may have become more highly valued. Even in those cultures where female choice was limited because elders arranged marriages, most elders of both sexes would probably have the maturity to prefer a man with good domestic qualities to be the father of their grandchildren rather than a young, violent hothead.

When overly aggressive men did become fathers, their children may have been less likely to survive, either because of poor parenting, or because their reckless father died young, leaving them less protected than other children.
 
Last edited:
In studies where AI was given more intelligence and put in simulations where it competes for resources against other, less intelligent AI, it was discovered in all cases that the more intelligent the AI, the more likely it was to just immediately eliminate its competition.

Let's keep that in mind. There are people who are violent and low-IQ and there are the opposite. The opposite occupy our history books and are known forever by name.

"Morality" and perhaps Hobbe's Leviathan are the only things keeping the cattle from liquidation.
 
One possible mechanism is that the most aggressive individuals, particularly those who were violent for no apparent reason, would become so unpopular within the social group that they would be ostracised and forced to leave the group. After that, the odds of surviving alone in an environment such as the African savannah would be low.

There would have been leadership contests within social groups, but as those groups got bigger and more socially cohesive, the winner of the contest was perhaps less likely to be the most violent one and more likely to be the one who gathered the biggest coalition of supporters, in other words, the one who was best at making friends. Leaders were more likely to have reproductive success.

Mate selection, as Angela wrote, is another mechanism. Humans are unique among great apes in reproducing through pair bonding and parental care by both parents. This change probably happened more than 600,000 years ago, but with the increasing complexity of culture and language in modern humans, the nurturing and mentoring qualities of good fathers and mothers may have become more highly valued. Even in those cultures where female choice was limited because elders arranged marriages, most elders of both sexes would probably have the maturity to prefer a man with good domestic qualities to be the father of their grandchildren rather than a young, violent hothead.

When overly aggressive men did become fathers, their children may have been less likely to survive, either because of poor parenting, or because their reckless father died young, leaving them less protected than other children.

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.
 
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.

I agree.

I've had this long running assumption that most people in a "mafia" would have ASPD. Granted, they are portrayed as being jovial socialites but only amongst others of the same predilections ie. they sit in the back of the restaurant with their other mafia buddies but could never relate to the yoga instructor, male kindergarten teacher, astrophysicists etc. They operate in "base logic terms" which you describe as manipulation of man's baser instincts while ignoring the emotional impact this might have.

So in the movies, they have some friends, their friends are violent hotheads like them and amongst their peers, there is some sort of peace predicated upon the silver back gorilla style warband model. In reality, they will have even fewer near peers than in the movies and, yes, they eventually become dangerous even to their own and are eventually ostracized.

Certain developmental things can exacerbate these ASPD traits such as poor parenting, poverty, harsh natural environment etc. Dumezil's Trifunctional Hypothesis seems to nail what this would have looked like in more primitive societies before the advent of a state system that can keep these types in check. These men would represent the warrior caste of the day. Take for instance Viking berserkers. We only know about them because they survived into the time of Christian writing but they were not unique to the Nordic Indo-European cultures. They were set apart from the rest either by choice or by force and called upon in times of war or to restore order. I believe these people to have ASPD in a time long before we had anyway of controlling it. I would relate this much to "mafioso" types today who are likely beset by the same mental issue but have the IQ to (normally) stay out of prison. The combination is frightening. Most with ASPD are of lower IQ's and are heavily representative of the violent prison population.

By the time of organized state systems, especially in the Indo-European world, take Roman Legions for instance, the role of the berserker is minimized or not needed at all. These men eventually are kept in check by the state which is far more powerful than them for the first time. This was not the case, say on the Steppes of Russia 6000 years ago where nothing could keep them in check.

Fast forward to the 20th and 21st centuries, where society has reached peak comfort levels, with nowhere else to go and being too impetuous for the military, which now values required, cool, calm, and collected aggressive types over berserkers, they fall into criminality with criminality being defined by me here as: manipulating the basic logic of human nature in violation of the state for the benefit of the individual criminal.

Most people with this issue would have been valued at one point in history but find themselves disregarded now. Perhaps they were even seen as dangerous and disregarded on the Steppes 6000 years ago but the difference being that back then, nothing could contain the smart ones and I would suspect in many cases, it was they who punched forward in the "successive waves of Indo-European language speaking invaders" seen from Ireland to India.

Key emphasis being on the fact that the smart ones kept things in check and that would separate the warlord from the berserkers that flock to his banner.

I would equate this to real 1%er motorcycle gangs like the Hell's Angels where an elite cadre of 1200-1500 hyper-violent but intelligent males control thousands of other hyper-violent and less intelligent males. There are between 1200-1500 "full-patch" members with several thousand "hangarounds" or "aspirants". Then, there are several hundred smaller motorcycle gangs that are neither Hell's Angels or trying to getting into the elite Hell's Angels themselves but answer to the Hell's Angels out of fear of retribution and often pay tribute. When called upon, they will answer the call of the Hell's Angels. In exchange, their mere association with the Hell's Angels in any capacity propels them above other similar motorcycle gangs that have no affiliation to the Hell's Angels. There is even a hierarchy to that model with non-motorcycle based gangs answering to these lesser motorcycle gangs who in turn answer to the Hell's Angels. If there were no state system, these 1% motorcycle gangs would be the literal reincarnation of the Proto-Indo-European horse warrior elite, Huns, or Mongols. The DOJ being as powerful as it is prevents these types from taking over the country. Their wealth and influence is on par with the Italian mob prior to the 1970's. I would be willing to bet my left hand that most of the 1200-1500 "full-patch" Hell's Angels have ASPD and would factually control the country (or groups similar) if not kept in check by the state.

If you ask me, the "State" grew into existence to "domesticate" intelligent ASPD males. In pure nature, they would likely endlessly fight each other in small war bands and fight amongst each other within the same war band. Sedentary state based societies very well could have grown in response to this natural phenomenon in primates. Without it, psychopathic, violent, but intelligent males who were purely self serving would dominate. At some point, we developed intelligence vastly in excess of other primates without losing this base tendency (primates are extremely violent by mammal standards) and needed a Leviathan to allow other aspects of life to flourish. I believe this was integral in the development of civilizations ie. that civilizations like perhaps Catalhoyuk in Turkey were citadels primarily protecting them from marauding bands of ASPD males in a time where no amount of rage could supplant the earliest of state systems. That waxed and waned as technologies like horse domestication or metallurgy start to come into play again giving an advantage to the ASPD males and thus the state system continues to evolve. This doesn't mean societies developed in a constant state of total war as technological development will spurn more technological development often on the grounds of improved survival, convenience, or religiosity.

So I'm not sure we "domesticated" ourselves as we see these very counter-cultural and violent tendencies even today, I just think the humans who once represented the violent "feral" counter culture are kept in check by civilization and we may not realize the degree to which civilization itself evolved as a counter to these threats.

Edit for spelling error and addition of 1% comparison.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 17676 times.

Back
Top