Michael Ragland wrote:
> The trouble with most psychological explanations is that they mostly
> require a biological grounding. In the end, much of psychology becomes a
> subset of biology, which of course means: evolutionary theory.
> 
> John Edsar
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting to note that neither Tom Hendricks or Phil Roberts Jr.
> responded to the main content of Edsar's post but instead focused on his
> introductory comment, "The trouble with most psychological explanations
> is that they mostly require a biological grounding. In the end, much of
> psychology becomes a subset of biology, which of course means:
> evolutionary theory." Their responses? They totally agree with Edsar and
> then they proceed to briefly outline their theories which they
> apparently think are an exception. 

John's post is a an excellent explanation of the evolutionary origins
of aggression.  Unfortunately, it can also be read as suggesting that
its "unscientific" to assume that aggression in man is in a category
all by itself.

> There is a word for this and its
> called "denial". Denial can be dangerous. Because if one has a grossly
> incorrect view of aggression in the face of blinding evidence it can
> lead to an improper general understanding of aggression and consequently
> of oneself and it conceivably could make it more difficult to control
> one's aggressive impulses. 

The BBC just did a report on terrorism.  This was a different one from
the television documentary on the roots of terrorism.  Based on
interviews with the half a dozen or so Palestinian terrorists who
survived their suicide missions the motive was 'To avenge the
misery of humiliation', not to gain material advantages, or even
to gain favor in the hereafter, etc.

> This is based on the premise if one does not
> have a basic understanding of the cause of aggression then in some
> circumstances it will be more difficult to control. They say knowledge
> is power and by not acknowledging aggression is totally biological (IMO)
> one has left themselves open to the increased possibility of
> powerlessness to their aggressive instincts. This is not necessarily
> inevitable but I do believe it contains the germ seed of it. 
> 

I believe aggression is totally biological.  Its just that, unlike
other species, it has been exapted to serve emotional ends rather
than physical ones.  Failing to understand this can lead to all
sorts of miscalculations when it comes to human agression.  As
you say, "Denial is dangerous".

> Denial in this context could be said a fear and unwillingness to
> acknowledge the tremendously powerful biological aggressive urges we
> possess. There is good reason to be afraid. When one looks at what man's
> aggressive instincts are capable of doing it is enough to make a person
> shudder in fright and horror. However, this is all the more important
> reason to have a proper general understanding of the cause of
> aggression.
> 

Ahmen!

> For a long time Tom Hendricks has neatly dichotimized aggression into
> so-called positive and negative and has attributed
"negative" aggression
> to environmental causes and has relied on Karen Horney's theories.
> Recently Phil Roberts Jr. has come on the scene and has advanced his
> theory aggression is primarily the cause of low self-esteem.
> 

NO! NO! NO!  Agression doesn't cause low self-esteem, silly.  Low
self-esteem or THREATS to one's self-esteem are a common cause of
agression. That's a fairly important disctinction.  Its also
only a generalization.  In man, we have incredible amounts
if individualization.  For example, when I felt like a
nobody in my teenage years I was more withdrawn than agressive.
However, my friend, Rich, could barely control his anger.  He
eventually ended up robbing a bank.

The George character in Seinfeld is a more commonplace example.
I would say George's frequent outbursts and constant humiliations
would, in real life, suggest a person who was probably a
candidate for thoughts of suicide.  Agreesion is often AN
IMPORTANT INDICATOR, NOT A CAUSE of low self-esteem.

> If these two men acknowledged aggression is biological and has an
> evolutionary basis I could more sympathetically address their theories
> (or those who they subscribe to) 

I do acknowledge its biological.  To suggest it serves a different
function in man than in other species is not to deny its biological
origins.  Its just to acknowledge that when you introduce
rationality into the natural selection mix all sorts of strange
things begin to happen, such as the fact that you end up with a
species that is increasingly less concerned with staying alive
(e.g., 9/11 terrorists) and increasingly more concerned with
sustaining REASONS for staying alive (i.e., self-worth maximization
manifested in needs for love, attention, purpose, meaning, moral
integrity, religion, justice, autonomy, etc. etc. etc.).

> but when they apparently deny the
> fundamental fact aggression is biological and has an evolutionary basis
> it leads me to think they may not really be interested in the theories
> they advance and are merely riding the skirts of these theories so they
> can have an "argument" to deny the biological basis of aggression.
> 

Not me.  Its so I can advance my own theory and, hopefully, win enough
converts to help me convince myself that I'm a truly brilliant intellect
and deserving of almost a religious awe from my peers.
The pickings have been a little slim so far however.    :)

> Recently, I asked Guy Hoelzer what he considered the evolutionary basis
> of aggression. This was an opportunity because Mr. Hoelzer is a
> biologist and it is not often a biologist posts to a thread on
> aggression. At least that has been my observation. Mr. Hoelzer stated he
> believed aggression probably arose very early in the evolution of life. 
> 

Absolutely.  No argument.  Its just that in nature's most rational species
it has been exapted to perform a new function for which it is poorly
suited.  Why do you think this amounts to "denying the biological roots of
aggression"?

PR
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 5/20/03 3:18:44 PM