From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 19:43:22 MST
Samantha writes
> [Lee wrote]
> > The entire notion that we even have /instincts/ predisposing
> > us towards violence is in stark contrast to the doctrine of
> > the Blank Slate, which has been basic dogma throughout the
> > 20th century.
>
> Please support that contention. I am not aware of any such "dogma".
Though I have not finished it, I will heartily recommend
(along with Damien) Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate".
It's an absolute *must* read.
> > Whether or not violent instincts can be controlled depends
> > greatly upon the individual and that individual's genetic
> > endowment. Stupidity is also highly correlated with violent
> > behavior. Soon, I predict, people with especially violent
> > tendencies can be treated.
>
> I disagree. If broad control/channeling of aggression was not
> widely possible and practical civilization would not have
> occurred. Violence is one of many likely possibilities given
> our genetic makeup. It is fortunately not the only or even the
> predominant one.
We need to be clear what we mean by "violence". I am
not, I admit, entirely sure what Nathaneal originally
meant, and was guessing.
What I mean is the *definite* tendency of *some* people
within a society to resort to violence to achieve their
ends, or as an almost unconditioned response. I am
excluding, therefore, known violent cultures such as
the Yanamoto. Speaking of modern Western societies,
and including China, those who predictably resort to
violence have something wrong with them. I know that
you believe it's because of the conditions they are
living in---I will substantiate my point further down.
> > I completely agree that without genetic modification, too many
> > people will remain violent, and criminal behavior can only be
> > dealt with by the primitive methods now in place.
>
> Do you mean too many people will remain capable of violence or
> too many people will choose to be violent? I assume the latter.
Yes, the latter.
> There is no such thing as "an instinct for violence" per se.
Agreed.
> War should be avoided as much as possible and violence curtailed
> simply because as we become more technologically sophisticated
> the possibility for highly dystopic outcomes, up to and
> including the destruction of humanity and all higher
> intelligence on this planet, grows.
I agree. And here my agreement would apply whether you were
talking about individual violence, or state vs. state. I have
in mind people like Sir Francis Drake, who was not at all
likely to be especially violent to the people he lived and
worked with, but who had an enormous capacity for it when
directed against other nations. Or, for another example,
pick any successful modern general (excluding McClellan).
> Levels of violence and ways violence is channeled that
> were acceptable at a lower level of technology become
> fraught with greater consequences.
Acceptable? I don't know what you are talking about.
Therefore, I will guess. The total rage and tendency
to violent behavior of some people---though *not*
acceptable to me---still allows our civilization to
function. But when such people can easily get their
hands on WMD.... just imagine how many people *tonight*
living in the city of San Francisco have been turned
over by a girl friend, or fired from a job, or made
uncontrollably angry in some other way, and had their
hands on a nuke! Goodbye SF.
> > Let me address the level of nations for a moment. Nations
> > are *not* in recent centuries administrated by violent or
> > sociopathic individuals. Each such leader, whether it's
> > Putin, Blair, Bush, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Marcos or Pinochet,
> > is a very sociable and effective team player. These leaders
> > take advantage of the territoriality and instincts of their
> > citizens, to serve their citizens by lookout out for the
> > national interest (or what they perceive to be the nation
> > interest).
>
> Stalin? Hitler? Excuse me? Some of these individuals were
> actively psychopathic and some of them practiced genocide.
Those are *not* the same thing. (When their ends were near,
each of those people did lose control.) But let's go back to
the year 1940, make a duplicate of each of them and teleport
him to a jail cell, and have you spend a year sharing the cell
with each. You would find each to be easy to work with, and
perhaps (language barriers aside) you'd find each to be quite
charming. (After all, they did not reach their positions,
especially in their early years, by displaying psychotic
symptoms to the people around them---the people who put a
great deal of trust in them.)
Now each one, Hitler and Stalin, would articulate very dramatic
and revolutionary *opinions* if you got them onto certain subjects.
The pity, of course, was that they rose to be heads of states
where they could put their extreme thoughts into practice. That
is all. They weren't crazy.
> Some of these individuals believed that killing off
> other humans was quite ok as long as it seemed to
> advance their own goals. There is nothing good or
> "being a team player" about this.
Well, of course! But then from the point of view of a criminal,
the chief of police is hardly a "team player" either! He wants
to take some people and lock them up in a cage for the rest of
their lives! Believe me, if you could take the pulse of all
the people in the 1930's who worked closely with Hitler or
Stalin, you'd learn that each had a very trust-inspiring
effect on those around him, and that he earned their respect
for their thoroughness and their ability to work with people.
> > Thus each leader---from Hussein to Blair---acts at some level
> > to advance what he believes to be the national interest. It's
> > still true that in non-democratic countries, the egos of the
> > leaders have an often appalling effect: Hitler, or Hussein,
> > or in fact any politician whose picture is prominently displayed
> > in public as some sort of "Beloved Leader", often identify their
> > own personal interests with those of their nation, and such is
> > their control that they get away with it.
>
> You don't believe any leader acts predominantly from
> self-interest or the interests of some sub-national group[s]
> s/he is part of?
I admit that this is a huge factor.
> This is a very wildly ahistorical statement.
What one? "Thus each leader acts at some level to advance
what he believes to be the national interest"? I'll stand
by that. You think it's ahistorical because of this: (?)
> That the leaders may rationalize what they wish to do as being
> in the national interest in no way says that they are actually
> acting according to what they believe to be the national
> interest. Democracy has nothing to do with it really.
But when someone has truly rationalized something,
they believe it. Perhaps you and I use the words
differently. (It takes people of great sensitivity
and desire for truth to pick up the slight signs
within their own minds that they are rationalizing!)
> Actually, on an individual level, it would be more fruitful to
> ask what living conditions would lead to the less perceived need
> for violence.
I totally disagree. You can prove this to yourself by
identifying what you think would be living conditions
that would promote violence, and then observing that
the vast majority of the people refuse to become violent.
Take the worst slums in the U.S., for example. Most
people are good citizens.
> It is not a question of ability. It is a question of choice.
> Or are we attempting to persuade ourselves that human beings
> have no such control as most humans learn as children?
Good question. I would say that almost all humans do have
control---i.e., if their incentives are right, then they
could control their violent urges. Some counter-examples
are notorious wife-beaters, who, even when they realize
what is going to happen if they persist, cannot stop.
But *most* humans do have control, as you say. It's just
that certain criminal types don't have any incentive, by
the lights of their own value systems, to be peaceful.
I consider these individuals to be sociopaths. And I
think that it's in their genes.
> > I can not think of historical examples in which exhortations,
> > maxims, education, or propaganda has had the desired effect.
> > Some cultures, e.g. the Amish or Quaker, do succeed sometimes
> > in multiplying their numbers through peaceful living, and
> > becoming a force against war. But to the degree that we
> > want to credit them, it is their culture, I claim, not their
> > having succumbed to someone's propaganda that should get
> > the credit.
>
> What do you think is in their culture that leads to this outcome
> if it is not a set of shared and lived memes?
Correct. That's what a culture is. A set of shared, evolved
memes. My point was only that these evolved gracefully within
the community, and that in NO EXAMPLE will one find that they
succumbed to sudden indoctrination from outside, or to preaching
from do-gooders, nor to propaganda from their governments.
> > (And moreover, it must be kept in mind that such cultures
> > to date have thrived only inside protective barriers erected
> > by democratic nations---barriers that keep such pacifistic
> > communities from being quickly overrun by violent nomads
> > or other nations.)
>
> Actually, some of these peaceful cultures did a fabulous job of
> facing down or rather coming to amicable terms with violent
> groups around them. See the Quakers interaction with Native
> American populations for a case in point.
Yes. But let's see why. The truth is that the Quakers would
take up very little of the Native American's habitat, and that
from the perspective of the latter, there was room for everyone
and even a lot to be gained from the presence of the white folk
(e.g. trade). Now I'm less sure that this would have saved
them from the Nazis, er, I mean Iroquois, the 17th century
version of those vicious Teutons. Everyone who got in the
way of the Iroquois got destroyed, especially other Indian
tribes.
Native Americans afford the greatest diversity of lifestyle
and habit as can be imagined. Many were utterly peaceful,
while many others' culture was incredibly warlike. The
advent of guns and horses in the 17th century gave the
latter quite an advantage over the former. Before that,
they were all living pretty much at a subsistence level,
and it's hard to conquer all the other tribes within
sight when so much time is spent just staying alive. But
horses and guns introduced what has been called the "whirlwind
culture", and some tribes just boomed.
> Without some training and dedication to looking for non-violent
> solutions (not necessarily as an absolute prohibition however),
> more violence than necessary will result. In a world where
> large numbers are disenfranchised to a critical level, more
> apparent need to resort to violence will be felt and acted upon.
Please substantiate that with historical examples. Quite the
opposite is the case in the ones I'm thinking of right now.
The French peasants had no thought of revolt in their completely
hopeless and downtrodden state until the 1700's when life
improved enough for them to entertain thoughts about inequality.
Even then, the French Revolution had its main springs from the
middle class, not the peasants. Sure, there have been peasant
revolts now and then (e.g. in Russia), but rather seldom, it
seems to me, considering the conditions under which they lived.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 24 2003 - 19:45:54 MST