The Deciders

[LMNO]

IF THERE IS NO AGGRESSION, HOW WILL WE KNOW IF THE RAPE IS LEGITIMATE?

[Juana]

IF THERE IS NO AGGRESSION, HOW WILL WE KNOW IF THE RAPE IS LEGITIMATE?

Society is a meta product of biological evolution, not the other way around.

It would logically follow that a social impetus toward gender roles would be a result of biology.

Don't forget the environmental effect, but yes.

Are you arguing for the gender binary, in effect? Because no. Obviously doesn't exist.

Because of our emergent consciousness, human society has, to an extent, grown along arbitrary lines dictated by consciousness, rather than underlying biology.

This appears to have resulted in a feedback loop whereby brain function can be influenced by social conditioning.

It does not logically follow that gender behaviour is entirely dictated by society.

it does, however, logically follow that there could be instances where social conditioning and biological imperative would be in conflict.

I would agree here.

Okay, although I'm going to point out that a fair amount of the wiring is the product of your culture.

Explain?

No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.

It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.

I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.

I can agree with this statement.

Me too. However, there's a reason that aggression rose to such prominence, in the animal kingdom in general, not just human beings.

Then I guess the real question is, is it still necessary?

Aggression = FUCK YOU THAT'S MY FEMALE/FOOD/TERRITORY. GTFO OR I KILL YOU. (also explains Othering) = increased survival

I want to answer no, but I'm not entirely sure that's right.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

IN our culture, as it is today... stereotypical male aggression doesn't appear to be as necessary as it perhaps once was. However, I think that is thanks (in large part) to the Machine, the System, the Society, the culture. That means that should the society fail, aggression may once again be necessary. The comments about anarchy boiling down to "Gimme your sammich!" has some merit and should society collapse, aggression may once again be necessary for survival.

We like to think we've evolved, but it wouldn't take all that much to send us running back into the trees (metaphorically speaking)

[Don Coyote]

Is it possible that the cultural expectation for men/males to behave in an aggressive manner might be influencing their testosterone levels?

[Juana]

I found one article on it, but I'm not entirely sure it's relevant as a) it's medical in intention and b) far too limited.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Is it possible that the cultural expectation for men/males to behave in an aggressive manner might be influencing their testosterone levels?

Wouldn't surprise me. There's a lot of feedback between mood and physiology.

This whole thing about "necessary" is it's not really the pertinent question, in my mind. Do we need it? I could imagine a society that worked a treat without it but the problem is that the cat is out the bag and the facts of the matter boil down to it's there and it's fucking effective. Anyone can employ it. How in the name of fuck do you stop it?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Is it possible that the cultural expectation for men/males to behave in an aggressive manner might be influencing their testosterone levels?

Wouldn't surprise me. There's a lot of feedback between mood and physiology.

This whole thing about "necessary" is it's not really the pertinent question, in my mind. Do we need it? I could imagine a society that worked a treat without it but the problem is that the cat is out the bag and the facts of the matter boil down to it's there and it's fucking effective. Anyone can employ it. How in the name of fuck do you stop it?

I wouldn't think there would be much point in trying to "stop" it. We're not going to eliminate aggression, and I'm not sure it would be a good thing if we did. I'm not sure that there needs to be more aggression on the part males than females, but I think aggression in general is something we don't want to eliminate from society. At least I don't. It gives us an edge, even if it isn't in hunting or warfare. I think the question shouldn't be how to stop it, but how to redirect it into something constructive that doesn't have the side effect of reinforcing inequality in the social order.

[Salty]

We are as likely to remove aggression from society as we are our brains. Male of female, we are and always will be aggressive. To a point. It's really only by miracle of our ability to reason that we don't resort to it immediately.

But humans being status seeking animals, we use aggression to propel ourselves forward. We've only just become very refined in applying it. I think female aggression is merely expressed differently due to circumstance, but I think it's cause is the same.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Nature needs violence to protect itself from attack. Makes perfect sense that the violence business is taken care of by the biggest one. Spiders have it round the other way.

But we've already established that our complex society would function much smoother without it. Now violence is effective as hell in resolving disputes in your favour but it doesn't fit in with morality. According to morality, only defensive violence is really acceptable and that dictates that there'll be no offensive violence so the whole thing is moot.

Then we have the real world where violence is the norm and the whole thing is just bad motherfuckers, taking care of business, in huge, armed gangs, right down to some guy punching some other guy out cos he stole his parking space. The language, the way we hold discussions, everything is violence, driven as much by chemicals squirting around in our bloodstream as our evolved consciousnesses.

How do you change that?

[Salty]

Much like the gender roles we've inherited through the same process, I think it's best to embrace our propensity for aggression and expand our understanding of it. That's the basis for my own Discordia.

I've always been a teensy bit on the angry side. And for years I looked for ways to get around it. There isn't any. You either bottle it up and let it explode, tell yourself you're somehow better than that (passive-aggressives), or make friends with it. Try to control it, but first acknowledge that your control over it is minimal.

I don't think we've ever left aggression behind. I think we just sharpened it, made a pretty hilt, and decorated it with jewels. We've made a cunning tool of aggression. Lets keep doing that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Men are wired that way by our culture, not by some sort of innate biology.

I don't know that that can be said definitively.

Men and women are biologically different and have different behavioral tendencies which are rooted in biology. However, from what science is able to find out so far with our very recent ability to measure and understand what happens in the brain and in the endocrine system, and how events and pressures during our development affect the brain and personality, human behavior is much, much more adaptive than it is innate.

There is also a huge danger in falling back on the "it's biology" argument, which is that it assumes to deprive men of a crucial element of their humanity; the ability to choose for themselves what kind of person they want to be.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't have an answer for that (ATM, since I gotta scoot for class in a second), except to point out that there are societies where men, or an entire gender made of males, don't act like that.

See, I can believe that, because the culture probably doesn't encourage or reward the risky/selfish behavior.  But that's not really addressing whether behavior... is...  ah.  Language trouble again.

Ok, we're going to need one term for biologically/hormonally driven behavior, and one for cultural.

Innate behavior (anthropologists believe in innate/instinctive drives, but not innate behavior, in humans) and adaptive (aka learned) behavior.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.

Ok, I notice I am confused. 

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm going to say what I thought I knew:

Testosterone is linked to aggressive/risky/selfish behavior.
Males tend to produce higher amounts of testosterone (often significantly higher) than women.
Ergo, men have a greater probability of aggressive/risky/selfish behavior.


Additionally, the links you provided were related to a connection between neural pathways and culture, not about hormone production.


What am I getting wrong, here?

There's a TED talk that touches on this topic. Anthropologists were studying a group of baboons. The group males were split between the dominant males and the not dominant ones. The Alphas showed typical aggressive behavior and the others showed a typical more altruistic behavior. Due to accidental food poisoning the Alpha males all died out, leaving only the not-so-aggressive males, females and babies. Long term observation showed that the whole group of baboons actually changed in their behavior. The males tended to be more altruistic and less aggressive. When new males tried to join the pack, only those that were less aggressive were accepted.

Its a single study, but one that indicates that MAYBE there is a very strong cultural component to some things we thought were purely biological.

http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans.html

Also, I love Sapolsky's hair

That guy is awesome! I hope he's a member of the long luxuriant hair club for scientists.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Now violence is effective as hell in resolving disputes in your favour but it doesn't fit in with morality. According to morality, only defensive violence is really acceptable and that dictates that there'll be no offensive violence so the whole thing is moot.

Violence isn't very effective if the dispute in question can be resolved without it. That's why it's a method of last resorts—it opens the door to someone seeking revenge, reduces the likelihood of forming an ally, and can permanently remove the possibility of ever trading goods with that person in the future.

The language, the way we hold discussions, everything is violence, driven as much by chemicals squirting around in our bloodstream as our evolved consciousnesses.

How do you change that?

You can't choose your biology very easily but you can choose the way you use language, as well as how you conduct yourself in discussions.

[Salty]

If women are "supposed" to be placating and passive, watching the children as opposed to creating creating civilization in any other way, while men use physical strength and endurance and violence to acquire food where does that leave us in a culture that women are more or less capable of choosing when to get pregnant? Why do you suppose women care so much about being able to make that choice?