12 ms·

Mammalian Aggression

102 points by apsec112 6y ago

s7W7Mlj 6y ago
JTng
s7W7Mlj 6y ago
4m7u1ss
s7W7Mlj 6y ago
badcS9
s7W7Mlj 6y ago
> Mammalian Aggression
jan_Inkepa 6y ago
Fun analysis. I would've assumed maternal aggression would come with vocalizing + threats, but here it says not? It says this: >Maternal aggression in rodents, like predatory aggression and unlike social aggression, is _not _accompanied by a cortisol response, elevated arousal, or social signaling (threats). But I've seen plenty of videos of animals being territorial where people say "oh they're guarding their cubs, stay away". But maybe they're talking about conspecific aggression? It feels like maybe an over-broad generalisation to me. I wish I knew more about animal behaviour that I could judge for sure...
- simonh 6y ago
  If you're simply encroaching on their territory and they happen to have young they might respond to it as a territorial threat. I suspect it's direct threats to the actual young that trigger maternal aggression, in which case it's gloves off, you're going down. So while it's still the territorial type you need to back off, because you really don't want it to turn into the other kind.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    The article claims that maternal aggression specifically occurs for pregnant mothers or while in the act of nursing the young (or at least while lactating). It seems that this is a very specific kind of aggression response, while the increased territoriality would likely be a case of defensive aggression.
  - belorn 6y ago
    I don't see much of a distinction between those two during mating season. A female with young has put significant investment into reproduction, and if the young has limited mobility, then female would benefit from lower threshold for threats and more active response in eliminating such threats. A male that has managed to gain the top of the male hierarchy and claimed a territory has also invested significant in their reproduction, and since the territory and status is fixed, would also benefit from lower threshold for threats and more active response in eliminating such threats. Its evolution based on passing on as many copies of your genes as possible, and the purpose of lowered threshold for threats and more active response is identical in both. Sex hormones are also a great tool to trigger this, but naturally in different context based on the reproductive method. It would also make a predictable theory that a species where both male and female have similar reproductive behavior and stakes, the relation between hormones and aggression will be similar for both genders.
sradman 6y ago
Mammalian aggression is described biologically within a framework of four categories: 1. Defensive 2. Social 3. Maternal 4. Predatory
ilaksh 6y ago
I have always felt that human behavior should be interpreted as a variant of mammal behavior. So social scientists would be informed by biologists.
- pjc50 6y ago
  20th-century eugenics discredited this concept so badly that it is now treated as radioactive waste. There was a lot of bad biology and sociology manufactured to justify supremacism.
  - vixen99 6y ago
    'human behavior should be interpreted as a variant of mammal behavior' is a discredited concept. Is it? Given the closeness of the genetic codes of humans and animals and the proven relationship between genes and certain behavioural characteristics, this is difficult to defend though some do of course. 'New evidence on the link between genes, psychological traits, and political engagement' https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/abs/new-evidence-on-the-link-between-genes-psychological-traits-and-political-engagement/54FECB361F0ACEDF7AD8C9409A4E7D60 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-lif...
    - tomerico 6y ago
      The broader concept of genetics affecting human behavior is a social landmine.
      - TT3351 6y ago
        I think the landmine is in looking for some kind of differentiation among humans rooted in the unique genetic patterns of groups of humans (i.e. convicts or members of a given race), not necessarily in understanding how genes shape our behavior generally.
  - warlog 6y ago
    I think late 20th c. actual science discredited early 20th c. pseudo science.
kashyapc 6y ago
Speaking of aggression, people often suspect the famous hormone testosterone as one of the prime causes. But Robert Sapolsky's (one of his papers is cited in OP's analysis) book, Behave shows something different: "While testosterone is inextricably tied to aggression, it is far less relevant to aggression than usually assumed." Instead of asking "What do individual levels of testosterone have to do with aggression?", he posits a better question: "Does difference in testosterone levels among individuals predict who will be aggressive?" The answer: Among birds, fish, mammals, and especially other primates, "generally no". As for humans, it has been extensively studied, and the jury is in (Sapolsky is quoting a British endocrinologist, John Archer): "There is a weak and inconsistent association between testosterone levels and aggression in [human adults], and ... administration of testosterone to volunteers typically does not increase their aggression." ——— The executive summary being testosterone's effects are hugely context dependent—this in turn means "rather than causing X, testosterone amplifies the power of something else to cause X."
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > Speaking of aggression, people often suspect the famous hormone testosterone as one of the prime causes. But Robert Sapolsky's (one of his papers is cited in OP's analysis) book, Behave shows something different: "While testosterone is inextricably tied to aggression, it is far less relevant to aggression than usually assumed." It's a very common thing, even among serious scientists, to immediately go searching for gendered factors and treat them as special, whereas often other factors are far larger, and far more interesting. I find it telling that politics and science focuses so much on say, gender and race factors in terms of influence on academic achievements whereas very simple things such as what time of year one is born in is actually a more telling factor. http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/resources/neuromyth-or-neurofact/children-do-better-in-school-if-they-were-born-in-the-autumn/ http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/resources/neuromyt...
  - pjc50 6y ago
    > gender and race factors in terms of influence on academic achievements The focus of the politics on these factors is because, within living memory, they were grounds for exclusion from academia entirely. There is therefore an effort to make sure the exclusion is not being carried on covertly instead of overtly. Bad ideas take a long time to replace.
uCantCauseUCant 6y ago
Aggression prevents becoming eaten - or integrated. He who makes you a component of his system, mages you a organ, thus cancer- or independence movements are a perspective thing.

102 points by apsec112 6y ago

s7W7Mlj 6y ago

JTng

s7W7Mlj 6y ago

4m7u1ss

s7W7Mlj 6y ago

badcS9

s7W7Mlj 6y ago

> Mammalian Aggression

jan_Inkepa 6y ago

Fun analysis. I would've assumed maternal aggression would come with vocalizing + threats, but here it says not? It says this: >Maternal aggression in rodents, like predatory aggression and unlike social aggression, is _not _accompanied by a cortisol response, elevated arousal, or social signaling (threats). But I've seen plenty of videos of animals being territorial where people say "oh they're guarding their cubs, stay away". But maybe they're talking about conspecific aggression? It feels like maybe an over-broad generalisation to me. I wish I knew more about animal behaviour that I could judge for sure...

simonh 6y ago
If you're simply encroaching on their territory and they happen to have young they might respond to it as a territorial threat. I suspect it's direct threats to the actual young that trigger maternal aggression, in which case it's gloves off, you're going down. So while it's still the territorial type you need to back off, because you really don't want it to turn into the other kind.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  The article claims that maternal aggression specifically occurs for pregnant mothers or while in the act of nursing the young (or at least while lactating). It seems that this is a very specific kind of aggression response, while the increased territoriality would likely be a case of defensive aggression.
- belorn 6y ago
  I don't see much of a distinction between those two during mating season. A female with young has put significant investment into reproduction, and if the young has limited mobility, then female would benefit from lower threshold for threats and more active response in eliminating such threats. A male that has managed to gain the top of the male hierarchy and claimed a territory has also invested significant in their reproduction, and since the territory and status is fixed, would also benefit from lower threshold for threats and more active response in eliminating such threats. Its evolution based on passing on as many copies of your genes as possible, and the purpose of lowered threshold for threats and more active response is identical in both. Sex hormones are also a great tool to trigger this, but naturally in different context based on the reproductive method. It would also make a predictable theory that a species where both male and female have similar reproductive behavior and stakes, the relation between hormones and aggression will be similar for both genders.

sradman 6y ago

Mammalian aggression is described biologically within a framework of four categories: 1. Defensive 2. Social 3. Maternal 4. Predatory

ilaksh 6y ago

I have always felt that human behavior should be interpreted as a variant of mammal behavior. So social scientists would be informed by biologists.

pjc50 6y ago
20th-century eugenics discredited this concept so badly that it is now treated as radioactive waste. There was a lot of bad biology and sociology manufactured to justify supremacism.
- vixen99 6y ago
  'human behavior should be interpreted as a variant of mammal behavior' is a discredited concept. Is it? Given the closeness of the genetic codes of humans and animals and the proven relationship between genes and certain behavioural characteristics, this is difficult to defend though some do of course. 'New evidence on the link between genes, psychological traits, and political engagement' https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/abs/new-evidence-on-the-link-between-genes-psychological-traits-and-political-engagement/54FECB361F0ACEDF7AD8C9409A4E7D60 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-lif...
  - tomerico 6y ago
    The broader concept of genetics affecting human behavior is a social landmine.
    - TT3351 6y ago
      I think the landmine is in looking for some kind of differentiation among humans rooted in the unique genetic patterns of groups of humans (i.e. convicts or members of a given race), not necessarily in understanding how genes shape our behavior generally.
- warlog 6y ago
  I think late 20th c. actual science discredited early 20th c. pseudo science.

kashyapc 6y ago

Speaking of aggression, people often suspect the famous hormone testosterone as one of the prime causes. But Robert Sapolsky's (one of his papers is cited in OP's analysis) book, Behave shows something different: "While testosterone is inextricably tied to aggression, it is far less relevant to aggression than usually assumed." Instead of asking "What do individual levels of testosterone have to do with aggression?", he posits a better question: "Does difference in testosterone levels among individuals predict who will be aggressive?" The answer: Among birds, fish, mammals, and especially other primates, "generally no". As for humans, it has been extensively studied, and the jury is in (Sapolsky is quoting a British endocrinologist, John Archer): "There is a weak and inconsistent association between testosterone levels and aggression in [human adults], and ... administration of testosterone to volunteers typically does not increase their aggression." ——— The executive summary being testosterone's effects are hugely context dependent—this in turn means "rather than causing X, testosterone amplifies the power of something else to cause X."

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> Speaking of aggression, people often suspect the famous hormone testosterone as one of the prime causes. But Robert Sapolsky's (one of his papers is cited in OP's analysis) book, Behave shows something different: "While testosterone is inextricably tied to aggression, it is far less relevant to aggression than usually assumed." It's a very common thing, even among serious scientists, to immediately go searching for gendered factors and treat them as special, whereas often other factors are far larger, and far more interesting. I find it telling that politics and science focuses so much on say, gender and race factors in terms of influence on academic achievements whereas very simple things such as what time of year one is born in is actually a more telling factor. http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/resources/neuromyth-or-neurofact/children-do-better-in-school-if-they-were-born-in-the-autumn/ http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/resources/neuromyt...
- pjc50 6y ago
  > gender and race factors in terms of influence on academic achievements The focus of the politics on these factors is because, within living memory, they were grounds for exclusion from academia entirely. There is therefore an effort to make sure the exclusion is not being carried on covertly instead of overtly. Bad ideas take a long time to replace.

uCantCauseUCant 6y ago

Aggression prevents becoming eaten - or integrated. He who makes you a component of his system, mages you a organ, thus cancer- or independence movements are a perspective thing.