7 ms·

I often see revenge as "you hurt me, I think you're not hurt, I want you to also hurt." I think we 1) assume the other is not hurting, which is very often fals

I often see revenge as "you hurt me, I think you're not hurt, I want you to also hurt." I think we 1) assume the other is not hurting, which is very often false, as the other person may hurt us because they feel hurt and assume we aren't hurting and 2) instead of trying to make them feel hurt, we can tell them that we're hurting. However, I think we mostly don't do that strategy because it often requires us to cry and most cultures shun crying. So we seem to end up feeling hut, hiding that hurt, and assuming the other doesn't feel hurt, probably because they're so good at hiding it.

danenania 4y ago
I think revenge probably evolved first and foremost as a deterrent. While it might feel satisfying to cause pain to someone who has hurt you, the damage has already been done and you can’t undo whatever damage you suffered. But you can show that there’s a cost to messing with you, which could prevent future aggression. I’d guess that’s why we feel the desire to punish in the first place.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  There was a study I read over the last year, maybe it was posted on here, that said we mostly seek revenge out of spite not deterrence. I hope I can find it again. I don't think it's about undoing the damage, it's about evening the damage. If you punch me and I feel hurt two days later, then I may still want to punch back. If I have healed physically and emotionally, forgiven you completely, do you think I'm as likely to punch you then?
  - davidgay 4y ago
    > There was a study I read over the last year, maybe it was posted on here, that said we mostly seek revenge out of spite not deterrence. It's easy to imagine that it's personally for spite, but evolutionarily for deterrence (i.e., spite is an evolutionarily effective way to encode deterrence).
    - jimkleiber 4y ago
      Ah, I found the link, "Punishment isn’t about the common good: it’s about spite" on Aeon [0]. The author doesn't state definitively (in the article at least) that punishment is about spite, but rather seems to introduce that it's likely that it is. I haven't read the linked studies yet but hope to. [0]: https://aeon.co/ideas/punishment-isnt-about-the-common-good-its-about-spite https://aeon.co/ideas/punishment-isnt-about-the-common-good-...
  - danenania 4y ago
    It depends on the situation, but if you’re likely to encounter the person who attacked you again, or others who might attack you, and they all become aware that you won’t fight back or get revenge in some other way, letting it slide could be the more dangerous option. If it’s a random stranger, someone you won’t encounter again, or you live in a society where violence is very rare, then it’s probably a moot point. We evolved in small tribes where everyone knew everyone, and just about everything that happened would quickly be known by the whole group. Combine that with scarcity and a higher propensity for violence, and being seen as an easy target would be something to avoid at all costs.
    - jimkleiber 4y ago
      I think you're assuming that fighting back is the only option. Yesterday, I saw my friend's two year old throw the toys of the five year old and the five year old didn't immediately punch his younger brother, but instead he cried. By crying, both parents were alerted and immediately came to his aid, and frankly scolded the two year old for throwing the toys (indirect revenge?). Maybe you could argue that by crying, the older child was getting revenge on the younger because he knew his parents would come to scold him. Or maybe the kid just wanted comfort because he lost something he cared about. It was hard for me to know whether his intention was to receive comfort and attention or to have his parents shame his brother, maybe both? > Combine that with scarcity and a higher propensity for violence I guess I don't see this as a given as much as it seems you do. I suppose I think people act violently out of pain, most of us just lashing out at each other because we think they hurt us first, more cooperative by nature than competitive, but maybe I'm describing your views inaccurately.
      - ipaddr 4y ago
        This is such a micro example but is having a 5 year old cry more desired than throwing the toy back? Needing some higher power when through age/ability the child could handle the situation themselves? Does this create a person at 25 who needs some external party to settle disputes and does this become a situation where this child learns to twist people into tools by playing on emotional responses?
- Avicebron 4y ago
  This may be true, but it invites escalation. Ender's Game revolved around this philosophy from what I can remember, and in the end..well...I won't spoil it if you haven't read it or watched the movie. but betting on preventing future aggression != guaranteed peace.
  - jimmygrapes 4y ago
    It's been awhile since I read the book(s) or watched the movie, but wasn't one of the core philosophical tenets underlying Ender's... specialness... the fact that he was ruthless in revenge? In the sense of "I may not be the one to start a fight, but I will certainly ensure that my response to aggression is so thorough that no further aggression is possible." Granted the initial 3 sequel books were large tomes about the corresponding guilt, repentance, and consequences stemming from that initial idea.
    - Avicebron 4y ago
      focusing on the consequences, it would be a very difficult earth to live on if a a response (the gp's point) was that using violence/punishment/retribution to stop further aggression was rational. I agreed that in the context of pure overwhelming aggression it might be possible (ender's game), but I doubt we would have gotten very far as a species or a planet if everyone followed that mentality with each other.
      - XorNot 4y ago
        The whole point of that book was that Ender was bred, taught and programmed to think that way and that it was wrong - it accomplished nothing. Even Ender himself realises this - and wouldn't have done it if he wasn't playing a game.

danenania 4y ago

I think revenge probably evolved first and foremost as a deterrent. While it might feel satisfying to cause pain to someone who has hurt you, the damage has already been done and you can’t undo whatever damage you suffered. But you can show that there’s a cost to messing with you, which could prevent future aggression. I’d guess that’s why we feel the desire to punish in the first place.

jimkleiber 4y ago
There was a study I read over the last year, maybe it was posted on here, that said we mostly seek revenge out of spite not deterrence. I hope I can find it again. I don't think it's about undoing the damage, it's about evening the damage. If you punch me and I feel hurt two days later, then I may still want to punch back. If I have healed physically and emotionally, forgiven you completely, do you think I'm as likely to punch you then?
- davidgay 4y ago
  > There was a study I read over the last year, maybe it was posted on here, that said we mostly seek revenge out of spite not deterrence. It's easy to imagine that it's personally for spite, but evolutionarily for deterrence (i.e., spite is an evolutionarily effective way to encode deterrence).
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    Ah, I found the link, "Punishment isn’t about the common good: it’s about spite" on Aeon [0]. The author doesn't state definitively (in the article at least) that punishment is about spite, but rather seems to introduce that it's likely that it is. I haven't read the linked studies yet but hope to. [0]: https://aeon.co/ideas/punishment-isnt-about-the-common-good-its-about-spite https://aeon.co/ideas/punishment-isnt-about-the-common-good-...
- danenania 4y ago
  It depends on the situation, but if you’re likely to encounter the person who attacked you again, or others who might attack you, and they all become aware that you won’t fight back or get revenge in some other way, letting it slide could be the more dangerous option. If it’s a random stranger, someone you won’t encounter again, or you live in a society where violence is very rare, then it’s probably a moot point. We evolved in small tribes where everyone knew everyone, and just about everything that happened would quickly be known by the whole group. Combine that with scarcity and a higher propensity for violence, and being seen as an easy target would be something to avoid at all costs.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    I think you're assuming that fighting back is the only option. Yesterday, I saw my friend's two year old throw the toys of the five year old and the five year old didn't immediately punch his younger brother, but instead he cried. By crying, both parents were alerted and immediately came to his aid, and frankly scolded the two year old for throwing the toys (indirect revenge?). Maybe you could argue that by crying, the older child was getting revenge on the younger because he knew his parents would come to scold him. Or maybe the kid just wanted comfort because he lost something he cared about. It was hard for me to know whether his intention was to receive comfort and attention or to have his parents shame his brother, maybe both? > Combine that with scarcity and a higher propensity for violence I guess I don't see this as a given as much as it seems you do. I suppose I think people act violently out of pain, most of us just lashing out at each other because we think they hurt us first, more cooperative by nature than competitive, but maybe I'm describing your views inaccurately.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      This is such a micro example but is having a 5 year old cry more desired than throwing the toy back? Needing some higher power when through age/ability the child could handle the situation themselves? Does this create a person at 25 who needs some external party to settle disputes and does this become a situation where this child learns to twist people into tools by playing on emotional responses?
Avicebron 4y ago
This may be true, but it invites escalation. Ender's Game revolved around this philosophy from what I can remember, and in the end..well...I won't spoil it if you haven't read it or watched the movie. but betting on preventing future aggression != guaranteed peace.
- jimmygrapes 4y ago
  It's been awhile since I read the book(s) or watched the movie, but wasn't one of the core philosophical tenets underlying Ender's... specialness... the fact that he was ruthless in revenge? In the sense of "I may not be the one to start a fight, but I will certainly ensure that my response to aggression is so thorough that no further aggression is possible." Granted the initial 3 sequel books were large tomes about the corresponding guilt, repentance, and consequences stemming from that initial idea.
  - Avicebron 4y ago
    focusing on the consequences, it would be a very difficult earth to live on if a a response (the gp's point) was that using violence/punishment/retribution to stop further aggression was rational. I agreed that in the context of pure overwhelming aggression it might be possible (ender's game), but I doubt we would have gotten very far as a species or a planet if everyone followed that mentality with each other.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      The whole point of that book was that Ender was bred, taught and programmed to think that way and that it was wrong - it accomplished nothing. Even Ender himself realises this - and wouldn't have done it if he wasn't playing a game.