5 ms·

> Like: "We tamed ourselves by weeding out bullies and domineering males throughout our evolutionary history. Humans organized egalitarian societies, and any ma

by vjk800 3y ago

> Like: "We tamed ourselves by weeding out bullies and domineering males throughout our evolutionary history. Humans organized egalitarian societies, and any male that violated this too much was subsequently the victim of a targeted killing." This quote is horribly wrong anyway. Human history, even before agriculture and industrialization, is filled with tribal wars. Maybe it would be more right to say that the aggressive bullies have historically had an outlet for their aggression: killing the aggressive bullies of other tribes. If aggressiveness were absolutely useless personality trait in past societies, it would have been weeded out by the evolution a long time ago.

WJW 3y ago
Just the > Humans organized egalitarian societies bit is so incredibly wrong. Status differences can be seen in any social creature, and humans are no different. History is absolutely overflowing with slavery, wars and various more-or-less official class systems like organized nobility or priesthoods.
- Levitz 3y ago
  Do note that the article talks about a point in time way before the agricultural revolution. I winced a little on that part too, but he does give the caveat later that women and children weren't equal to men at all, which means that "egalitarian societies" means "something like 30% of the tribe was somewhat egalitarian" which really isn't saying much. I also winced when later in the article there is what I consider to be an enormous leap of logic, when stating that a child staring at two puppets being rewarded differently means the child yearns for equality. I've got to say that the older I get, the more effort it takes me not to dismiss social science commentary unless backed up with strong evidence. There is just so much bullshit.
  - imbnwa 3y ago
    >I winced a little on that part too, but he does give the caveat later that women and children weren't equal to men at all, which means that "egalitarian societies" means "something like 30% of the tribe was somewhat egalitarian" which really isn't saying much That's also what ancient Athenian democracy was
    - tetromino_ 3y ago
      > That's also what ancient Athenian democracy was Athenian democracy was far worse: ~15% of the population was hereditary uncitizens (metics) with almost no rights, ~40% were slaves with zero rights, women and children from citizen families had very limited rights of their own, so the Athenian democracy was really democracy for the ~12% of the population who were adult citizen males.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Think you are confusing aggression inside the tribe versus towards other tribes. A tribe would not care at all about targeting bullies in other tribes. A tribe would weed out internal bullies, or overly aggressive behavior, to promote cooperation in large groups. But, as you hint at, you still need aggression for war. War for defense and to fight for resources. So the evolution drive within the tribe, was to reduce aggression/bulling, but also to keep aggressive tendencies enough to fight other tribes. We still need defense, so need to keep aggression, but for a tribe to succeed, need to control aggression internal to the tribe, to drive cooperation. Hence, probably why aggression has not been weeded out completely, there are still cases where it was needed. And as the definition of 'tribe' changes, someone's perception of in group, out group, can flip the switch on 'this is war'. Sorry, one edit. And as all tribes grew egalitarian, all tribes would find reduced need for aggression. And think we need a scale for aggression, sure egalitarian societies still had plenty of wars, but humans were still a less aggressive animal than a band of chimps.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  > And as all tribes grew egalitarian... Did they? I'm more inclined to agree with WJW. These "egalitarian tribes" do not seem to be the conclusion one reaches from an unbiased reading of the historical record.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Think it is a matter of the sliding scale of what we are calling aggression. There are less wars and killing now, there is a clear downward trend in the historical record.
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      A clear downward trend since when? 1945? I'm not sure you can paint history before then as a clear downward trend in wars and killing. (If you've got data, feel free to point to it.)

by vjk800 3y ago

WJW 3y ago

Just the > Humans organized egalitarian societies bit is so incredibly wrong. Status differences can be seen in any social creature, and humans are no different. History is absolutely overflowing with slavery, wars and various more-or-less official class systems like organized nobility or priesthoods.

Levitz 3y ago
Do note that the article talks about a point in time way before the agricultural revolution. I winced a little on that part too, but he does give the caveat later that women and children weren't equal to men at all, which means that "egalitarian societies" means "something like 30% of the tribe was somewhat egalitarian" which really isn't saying much. I also winced when later in the article there is what I consider to be an enormous leap of logic, when stating that a child staring at two puppets being rewarded differently means the child yearns for equality. I've got to say that the older I get, the more effort it takes me not to dismiss social science commentary unless backed up with strong evidence. There is just so much bullshit.
- imbnwa 3y ago
  >I winced a little on that part too, but he does give the caveat later that women and children weren't equal to men at all, which means that "egalitarian societies" means "something like 30% of the tribe was somewhat egalitarian" which really isn't saying much That's also what ancient Athenian democracy was
  - tetromino_ 3y ago
    > That's also what ancient Athenian democracy was Athenian democracy was far worse: ~15% of the population was hereditary uncitizens (metics) with almost no rights, ~40% were slaves with zero rights, women and children from citizen families had very limited rights of their own, so the Athenian democracy was really democracy for the ~12% of the population who were adult citizen males.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Think you are confusing aggression inside the tribe versus towards other tribes. A tribe would not care at all about targeting bullies in other tribes. A tribe would weed out internal bullies, or overly aggressive behavior, to promote cooperation in large groups. But, as you hint at, you still need aggression for war. War for defense and to fight for resources. So the evolution drive within the tribe, was to reduce aggression/bulling, but also to keep aggressive tendencies enough to fight other tribes. We still need defense, so need to keep aggression, but for a tribe to succeed, need to control aggression internal to the tribe, to drive cooperation. Hence, probably why aggression has not been weeded out completely, there are still cases where it was needed. And as the definition of 'tribe' changes, someone's perception of in group, out group, can flip the switch on 'this is war'. Sorry, one edit. And as all tribes grew egalitarian, all tribes would find reduced need for aggression. And think we need a scale for aggression, sure egalitarian societies still had plenty of wars, but humans were still a less aggressive animal than a band of chimps.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
> And as all tribes grew egalitarian... Did they? I'm more inclined to agree with WJW. These "egalitarian tribes" do not seem to be the conclusion one reaches from an unbiased reading of the historical record.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Think it is a matter of the sliding scale of what we are calling aggression. There are less wars and killing now, there is a clear downward trend in the historical record.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    A clear downward trend since when? 1945? I'm not sure you can paint history before then as a clear downward trend in wars and killing. (If you've got data, feel free to point to it.)