6 ms·

In my reading of the TFA, it's not. It's the idea that less aggressive individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males by the femal

In my reading of the TFA, it's not. It's the idea that less aggressive individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males by the females, partly by pruning of the most violent individuals by the whole group. Nothing to do with the domestication of one group by another.

mirimir 8y ago
I agree. But there's no reason that nobility could not also have domesticated peasants. However, it's arguably not about the group "pruning of the most violent individuals". Rather, it's about pruning individuals with low social status who resort to violence. That is, individuals who don't follow orders. Morgan's Black Man (aka 13) is an interesting take on this.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  >> But there's no reason that nobility could not also have domesticated peasants. Also, no reason that the peasants have enabled the mobility to be in control so that it would be easier to domesticate each other. You seem like a person who's just read a book and are trying to mention it everywhere.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Sure, that's possible. And yes, I do mention science fiction and fantasy ~frequently. And I do like Richard Morgan's stuff, and people who are independent, and often violent, are a recurring theme. But actually, it's Matthew Stover's "Caine" series that I love the best. His central theme is Aleister Crowley's Law of Thelema: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ... Love is the law, love under will." And there's a key point that's often missed by assholes. If you habitually hurt others, except in self defense, others will choose to exile, imprison or kill you. Because, you know, that's an expression of their love for each other. And if I were really going on about it, I'd get into William S. Burroughs' stuff about killing the assholes (5-10% of the population) who impose their will on others. But I won't.
aklemm 8y ago
How do we get another round of that?
phkahler 8y ago
>> It's the idea that less aggressive individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males by the females, partly by pruning of the most violent individuals by the whole group. Not buying the notion of females selecting more docile males. Women almost unversally tend to be attracted to alpha male characteristics and often get into trouble chasing that type of guy. The ones who want more docile men are often those who got burned by someone at the far end of the aggression spectrum. This is a form of selection, but it's not a mechanism that would change females natural preferences.
- Charlaxy 8y ago
  What is the effect of males selecting for docile females on future sons and daughters? Or do you believe that males aren't discriminating?
  - zamalek 8y ago
    Thousands to tens of thousands of years ago, who knows? This article isn't about modern society and modern problems.
  - phkahler 8y ago
    >> What is the effect of males selecting for docile females on future sons and daughters? Or do you believe that males aren't discriminating? What makes you think males get to select a mate? And who deliberately goes for a docile female?
    - krapp 8y ago
      >What makes you think males get to select a mate We're not talking about insects, or birds, we're talking about human beings. Humans don't select mates, we select partners with whom we may or may not mate, and the process of selection is social, mutual and complex.
      - phkahler 8y ago
        >> We're not talking about insects, or birds, we're talking about human beings. Well aren't we special then. We're talking about evolution, so the part of "we select partners with whom we may or may not mate" where people don't mate is not even relevant. In fact, if there is a genetic component to not mating, it is selected against in evolutionary terms. I thought we were talking about what people are attracted to (i.e. make one feel like mating), not who they like to hang out with - if you find both of those characteristics in one person that's great and I think we all strive for that. But don't kid yourself that humans don't have primitive instinctual drives governed by biology and evolution.
porpoisely 8y ago
I see that theory about female selection being pushed a lot lately, but it's a fairly easily debunked theory. Female selection didn't occur in human society. Females didn't get to choose who they married. Rather it was the men who decided which females marry which male. Also, there is far less diversity in the Y chromosome than the X. The best possible explanation is during ancient tribal war, the winning side killed all the males of the losing tribe and bred with the females. Also, we have evidence that the greatest genetic winners are warriors/leaders like genghis khan and charlemagne. Historical, genetic and biological evidence debunks the female selection theory. As for the "pruning of violent individuals by the whole group". That too is nonsense. It is the most violent group who establishes order. Law and order isn't anything the group decided on. Rather law and order is something a small group of violent elites forced on the masses. Think about the US. The group didn't vote on independence. Rather it was a small group of violent elites. During the revolution, at most 30% of the colonial population supported independence. Think about the current world order ( aka international order ). Nobody voted for it. It was forced on the world by 2 world wars, 1 cold war and 200 million dead people. Or look at china. Tens of millions of people died in order for order to be enforced on that gigantic nation. The idea that female selection or pruning of violent individuals is how humans tamed themselves simply isn't true. Also, the idea that humans tamed themselves is simply a lie as well. We were tamed through law, order and lots of violence. Also, full bellies and distractions ( bread and circuses ) helped.
- antisthenes 8y ago
  None of what you wrote debunks female selection theory.
  - porpoisely 8y ago
    If females don't get to choose who they mate with and breed with, how would female selection theory work? If tribe A conquers tribe B and kills all the males in tribe B and breeds with all the females in tribe B, how exactly is female selection involved here? Or even if the males in tribe B weren't killed but all the resources were taken by males in tribe A, where does female selection apply?
yesenadam 8y ago
Might be a silly question, but what is "the TFA"? Googling didn't help me.
- Componica 8y ago
  The F'ing Article
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    ah ok thanks. Hopefully that's not the new standard way of referring to the article! Or worse, "the TFA".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

mirimir 8y ago

I agree. But there's no reason that nobility could not also have domesticated peasants. However, it's arguably not about the group "pruning of the most violent individuals". Rather, it's about pruning individuals with low social status who resort to violence. That is, individuals who don't follow orders. Morgan's Black Man (aka 13) is an interesting take on this.

heavenlyblue 8y ago
>> But there's no reason that nobility could not also have domesticated peasants. Also, no reason that the peasants have enabled the mobility to be in control so that it would be easier to domesticate each other. You seem like a person who's just read a book and are trying to mention it everywhere.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Sure, that's possible. And yes, I do mention science fiction and fantasy ~frequently. And I do like Richard Morgan's stuff, and people who are independent, and often violent, are a recurring theme. But actually, it's Matthew Stover's "Caine" series that I love the best. His central theme is Aleister Crowley's Law of Thelema: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ... Love is the law, love under will." And there's a key point that's often missed by assholes. If you habitually hurt others, except in self defense, others will choose to exile, imprison or kill you. Because, you know, that's an expression of their love for each other. And if I were really going on about it, I'd get into William S. Burroughs' stuff about killing the assholes (5-10% of the population) who impose their will on others. But I won't.

aklemm 8y ago

How do we get another round of that?

phkahler 8y ago

>> It's the idea that less aggressive individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males by the females, partly by pruning of the most violent individuals by the whole group. Not buying the notion of females selecting more docile males. Women almost unversally tend to be attracted to alpha male characteristics and often get into trouble chasing that type of guy. The ones who want more docile men are often those who got burned by someone at the far end of the aggression spectrum. This is a form of selection, but it's not a mechanism that would change females natural preferences.

Charlaxy 8y ago
What is the effect of males selecting for docile females on future sons and daughters? Or do you believe that males aren't discriminating?
- zamalek 8y ago
  Thousands to tens of thousands of years ago, who knows? This article isn't about modern society and modern problems.
- phkahler 8y ago
  >> What is the effect of males selecting for docile females on future sons and daughters? Or do you believe that males aren't discriminating? What makes you think males get to select a mate? And who deliberately goes for a docile female?
  - krapp 8y ago
    >What makes you think males get to select a mate We're not talking about insects, or birds, we're talking about human beings. Humans don't select mates, we select partners with whom we may or may not mate, and the process of selection is social, mutual and complex.
    - phkahler 8y ago
      >> We're not talking about insects, or birds, we're talking about human beings. Well aren't we special then. We're talking about evolution, so the part of "we select partners with whom we may or may not mate" where people don't mate is not even relevant. In fact, if there is a genetic component to not mating, it is selected against in evolutionary terms. I thought we were talking about what people are attracted to (i.e. make one feel like mating), not who they like to hang out with - if you find both of those characteristics in one person that's great and I think we all strive for that. But don't kid yourself that humans don't have primitive instinctual drives governed by biology and evolution.

porpoisely 8y ago

I see that theory about female selection being pushed a lot lately, but it's a fairly easily debunked theory. Female selection didn't occur in human society. Females didn't get to choose who they married. Rather it was the men who decided which females marry which male. Also, there is far less diversity in the Y chromosome than the X. The best possible explanation is during ancient tribal war, the winning side killed all the males of the losing tribe and bred with the females. Also, we have evidence that the greatest genetic winners are warriors/leaders like genghis khan and charlemagne. Historical, genetic and biological evidence debunks the female selection theory. As for the "pruning of violent individuals by the whole group". That too is nonsense. It is the most violent group who establishes order. Law and order isn't anything the group decided on. Rather law and order is something a small group of violent elites forced on the masses. Think about the US. The group didn't vote on independence. Rather it was a small group of violent elites. During the revolution, at most 30% of the colonial population supported independence. Think about the current world order ( aka international order ). Nobody voted for it. It was forced on the world by 2 world wars, 1 cold war and 200 million dead people. Or look at china. Tens of millions of people died in order for order to be enforced on that gigantic nation. The idea that female selection or pruning of violent individuals is how humans tamed themselves simply isn't true. Also, the idea that humans tamed themselves is simply a lie as well. We were tamed through law, order and lots of violence. Also, full bellies and distractions ( bread and circuses ) helped.

antisthenes 8y ago
None of what you wrote debunks female selection theory.
- porpoisely 8y ago
  If females don't get to choose who they mate with and breed with, how would female selection theory work? If tribe A conquers tribe B and kills all the males in tribe B and breeds with all the females in tribe B, how exactly is female selection involved here? Or even if the males in tribe B weren't killed but all the resources were taken by males in tribe A, where does female selection apply?

yesenadam 8y ago

Might be a silly question, but what is "the TFA"? Googling didn't help me.

Componica 8y ago
The F'ing Article
- yesenadam 8y ago
  ah ok thanks. Hopefully that's not the new standard way of referring to the article! Or worse, "the TFA".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]