3 ms·

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 trib

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.)
    - gampleman 3y ago
      It's a funny one, because it depends on how you count. In terms of frequency of wars, we seem to be on a downwards trends, with some historical polities (say such as Rome) engaging in war pretty much constantly. In terms of absolute casualty numbers, the trend seems to be mostly reversed. That's mostly due to the deadliness of modern weaponry as well as the increased state capacity of the combatants. On the third hand, casualty numbers as a percentage of total population are probably still down, mostly driven by the very large population growth.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      There are books on it. Just quick search found sources. Believe to narrow down what is meant by violence , it is all violent deaths, by war or murder. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/history-and-the-decline-of-human-violence/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/history-and-the-d... https://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature https://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-natu... https://fivebooks.com/best-books/decline-violence-steven-pinker/ https://fivebooks.com/best-books/decline-violence-steven-pin...
marcinzm 3y ago
To weed out an internal bully itself requires aggression from others. The lack of that just gives an evolutionary advantage to bullies.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Not quite. Bullies can be weeded out in a number of ways that don't take aggression in the form of fighting. Don't Inuit do it by simply withdrawing group support and the bully starves? Often individuals can't survive on their own, so if they become ostracized by the group they die off, either starve, get picked off by wild animals, etc.... So the behavior that remains viable is to be aggressive to external groups, but better not alienate the in-group.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> A tribe would weed out internal bullies, or overly aggressive behavior, to promote cooperation in large groups. No they wouldn't. If a tribe needs bullies that can be targeted against outgroups... well, how does one even become a bully? Bullies need practice. It's a skill like any other. Maybe every great once in awhile some natural is born that needs no practice. Too rare to count on. No, you let your own children grow up bullies. You let the bullies have the marginal people in your group (when's the last time you heard of a school bully picking on the football players and cheerleaders?). Then you can keep a reserve of bullies, in case you ever need them. It's plainly obvious this happens. I'm always a little surprised that everyone is so blind to it. Sure, it's instinctive and not deliberate, but still.

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.)
  - gampleman 3y ago
    It's a funny one, because it depends on how you count. In terms of frequency of wars, we seem to be on a downwards trends, with some historical polities (say such as Rome) engaging in war pretty much constantly. In terms of absolute casualty numbers, the trend seems to be mostly reversed. That's mostly due to the deadliness of modern weaponry as well as the increased state capacity of the combatants. On the third hand, casualty numbers as a percentage of total population are probably still down, mostly driven by the very large population growth.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    There are books on it. Just quick search found sources. Believe to narrow down what is meant by violence , it is all violent deaths, by war or murder. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/history-and-the-decline-of-human-violence/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/history-and-the-d... https://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature https://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-natu... https://fivebooks.com/best-books/decline-violence-steven-pinker/ https://fivebooks.com/best-books/decline-violence-steven-pin...

marcinzm 3y ago

To weed out an internal bully itself requires aggression from others. The lack of that just gives an evolutionary advantage to bullies.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Not quite. Bullies can be weeded out in a number of ways that don't take aggression in the form of fighting. Don't Inuit do it by simply withdrawing group support and the bully starves? Often individuals can't survive on their own, so if they become ostracized by the group they die off, either starve, get picked off by wild animals, etc.... So the behavior that remains viable is to be aggressive to external groups, but better not alienate the in-group.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> A tribe would weed out internal bullies, or overly aggressive behavior, to promote cooperation in large groups. No they wouldn't. If a tribe needs bullies that can be targeted against outgroups... well, how does one even become a bully? Bullies need practice. It's a skill like any other. Maybe every great once in awhile some natural is born that needs no practice. Too rare to count on. No, you let your own children grow up bullies. You let the bullies have the marginal people in your group (when's the last time you heard of a school bully picking on the football players and cheerleaders?). Then you can keep a reserve of bullies, in case you ever need them. It's plainly obvious this happens. I'm always a little surprised that everyone is so blind to it. Sure, it's instinctive and not deliberate, but still.