Paging Guy Hoelzer
Michael Ragland
Mr. Hoelzer:
Please excuse me if you have already responded to my previous post on
aggression and it hasn't appeared yet on my news reader. It was first
posted on May 9th I believe. I thought it was possible you elected not
to respond to the questions I asked (certainly your prerogative) or
perhaps it was not "current" and had escaped from visible view.
[moderator's note: Note that Guy's response showed up in the same
queue of articles, around noon PDT on 13 May, and is being posted
in the same glob. Carry on. - JAH]
In any event, I hope you will address the post which I have reposted
here. There are several reasons for this. On your university webpage
under "research interests" you specify, "My primary research interest is
the evolution of animal social behavior." You also state, "I also like
to pursue both empirical and theoretical questions in my research." I
would think a biologist with such research interests would have plenty
of thoughts about the role of aggression in the evolution of animal
behavior. You did respond to my question regarding what the evolutionary
basis of aggression is but it was a mere two short paragraphs prefaced
by the words "suppose" and "guess". It seemed to be not very deep and
almost non-commital. If you would feel more comfortable discussing this
subject via email rather than through the newsgroup please do so.
I'm not a scientist which may be another reason why scientists don't
want to really discuss the subject of aggression with me. They've gone
to school for years and years and have learned what an intregral part
aggression is in the evolution of life and animal social behavior and to
discuss it with a person who doesn't possess a fraction of this
knowledge might seem to be a waste of time. However, just because I
don't have any real scientific knowledge in this area of biology doesn't
necessarily mean my ideas on this subject are totally without merit.
It's my "impression" there is always some kind of research on aggression
being done. It seems the research which has received the most public
attention in this area has been with "knockout mice". Certainly, I would
think this area of research is rich with theoretical questions.
Some of this research on aggression occurs unexpectedly. For example,
"Originally, the Hopkins researchers intended to use this particular
knockout strain to study the neurotransmitter's [nitric oxide] role in
brain damage caused by stroke. But they were puzzled when, in the
mornings, they began finding one or two dead animals among each group of
five male mice caged together overnight. Soon, they noticed how
aggressive the animals were. "We're not used to seeing prolonged
fighting in mice," Nelson said.
Of course, mice aren't humans but they are both genetically similar. As
many have noted there are so many physiological pathways involved in
aggression that no one chemical is responsible for it. What I don't
understand is why this kind of research hasn't been performed on
chimpanzees. Is it because its not scientifically possible yet? Is it
because of ethical and social concerns? I've looked on the internet for
research on aggression and it always involves mice and voles when it
comes to knockouts. Perhaps there are other animals but I've never seen
any chimpanzee research in this regard. I realize the chimpanzee
research community is a precious commodity and research can't be done
which doesn't have some hope for success of some kind. So most likely
the science hasn't advanced to the degree it would be justifiable to do
this kind of research on chimpanzees. Mice, on the other hand, are
rather expendable.
You mention you are particularly interested in advising graduate
students who want to work in the areas of sexual selection and
conservation genetics. There can be no doubt aggression is involved in
virtually all aspects of life but in the area of sexual selection and
reproduction I would think aggression is transparently obvious. Of
course, how can I forget Ron Okimoto's statement that producing people
without aggression would make them "neuters".
I wasn't even sure what conservation genetics was so I looked it up.
From what I recall it deals with the genetics of endangered populations.
It is primarily man's aggression which has produced so many endangered
populations and has led to the sixth mass extinction of species.
I hope you will address my main questions. It is not totally without a
scientific basis since research on aggression with knockout mice and
other animals is seen in the light of having the potential to address
aggression in humans.
For whatever reason, I've had a very difficult time getting biologists
to discuss these issues in this forum. I almost started to with Mr.
Okimoto but that was only because the original thread was my contention
genetic engineering of people wasn't eugenics. As soon as I conceded it
was a type of eugenics Mr. Okimoto had no interest in pursuing any
further subject matter since the original question had been settled.
Perhaps there is a generation gap or a difference in life experiences
which accounts for the lack of discussion on this topic. Maybe its the
schooling and training. I don't know. I've noticed on this forum its
understandably heavily influenced by Darwinian thinking and population
genetics.
If genetic engineering of humans ultimately means interfering with
Darwinian evolution e.g. modifying natural selection, sexual selection,
aggression, reproduction, etc. then its understandable why biologists
which have been taught these "immutable facts" would have difficulty
accepting genetic engineering of society. "This is how sexual selection
works", "This is how aggression works", "This is how natural selection
works". But if you raise your hand and say, "Okay, this is how it works
in part...according to Darwin but how about the need for changing it",
you are either ignored or stared at like your crazy.
I could be mistaken but I think there is an element in the scientific
community which is just as much opposed to genetic engineering of people
as the Christian Fundamentalists and the Vatican. Nowhere in s.b.e. have
I seen any clearcut support for genetic engineering of people. Nowhere
have I seen anybody acknowledge how horrific human aggression is as a
worldwide problem or offer a possible solution in genetic engineering.
The science doesn't have to advanced to the point where there are
answers to these questions to undergo a philosophical shift of mind.
Michael Ragland
Research Interests
My primary research interest is the evolution of animal social behavior;
however, my interests range from molecular evolution to sexual selection
to phylogenetics. I also like to pursue both empirical and theoretical
questions in my research. The organisms I have studied also comprise a
diverse group, including fishes and primates.
I am currently using the tools of molecular genetics to address the
evolution of primate, avian and fish taxa. My recent work has included
1) the reconstruction of macaque phylogeny through analysis of
mitochondrial DNA restriction-sites, 2) using DNA fingerprinting to
assess the genetic structure of primate populations and determine
paternity in wild populations, 3) phylogenetics and phylogeography of
avian and fish taxa, and 4) development of new theory and methodology in
phylogenetics. My graduate students will generally combine molecular lab
work with field work to better understand the evolution or ecology of a
group of organisms. I am particularly interested in advising graduate
students who want to work in the areas of sexual selection or
conservation genetics.
______________________________________
I suppose my views on the role of aggression are rooted in my animal
behavior training. I see the adaptive value of aggression as founded
in the context of competition. If there is competition among organisms
for some sort of limiting resource, then aggression can be a successful
way to obtain valuable resources at the expense of others, especially if
the resource is spatially concentrated. It is generally hard to "own" a
widely distributed resource, so aggression is unlikely to be adaptive in
this context.
I would guess that aggression probably arose very early in the evolution
of life because I think that clumped resource distributions are rather
common. If, for example, life began around hydrothermal vents, then
aggression might have benefited individuals in the competition to be
positioned an optimal distance (an optimal balance of heat and nutrient
density) from the vent. I suspect that other sources of energy-rich
complex molecules could have been spatially concentrated, as well.
Guy
You state, "I see the adaptive value of aggression as founded in the
context of competition. If there is competition among organisms for some
sort of limiting resource, then aggression can be a successful way to
obtain valuable resources at the expense of others, especially if the
resource is spatially concentrated. It is generally hard to "own" a
widely distributed resource, so aggression is unlikely to be adaptive in
this context." Although there are several energy sources including coal,
natural gas, nuclear energy, etc. I'm presenting below the top 10 oil
exporters and importers of petroleum as an example of competition among
humans of a limiting resource. Furthermore, in this context aggression
not only can be but is a successful way to obtail this valuable energy
source at the expense of others. Although the top 10 oil exporters are
not tightly spatially concentrated oil is certainly not a widely
distributed resource. In other words, there are only a handful of
countries which are major oil producers and the U.S. relies on over 50%
of its oil from the foreign market.
I agree with you if there is competition among organisms for some sort
of limiting resource, then aggression can be a successful way to obtain
valuable resources at the expense of others, especially if the resource
is spatially concentrated. Certainly the adaptive value of aggression is
founded in the context of competition, particularly as a social
behavior.
You write, "I would guess that aggression probably arose very early in
the evolution of life because I think that clumped resource
distributions are rather common. If, for example, life began around
hydrothermal vents, then aggression might have benefited individuals in
the competition to be positioned an optimal distance (an optimal balance
of heat and nutrient density) from the vent. I suspect that other
sources of energy-rich complex molecules could have been spatially
concentrated, as well."
I "suppose":) what I'm trying to elicit from you is not merely a
scientifically detached (as science must be) general answer responding
the evolutionary basis of aggression but whether you think the adaptive
value of aggression as founded in the context of competition is still
adaptive for the human species today.
For example, no one can dispute that if life began around hydrothermal
vents that aggression might have benefited individuals in the
competition to be positioned an optimal distance (an optimal balance of
heat and nutrient density) from the vent and that sources of energy-rich
complex molecules could have been spatially concentrated.
I could be mistaken but I would think that early in our evolution such
clumped resource distribution which played an instrumental role in
aggression was a driving force of Darwinian evolution. As you point out
aggression was a way of getting hold of such clumped resources at the
expense of others and one can surmise those organisms which didn't
possess enough aggression were driven to extinction. As Stephen Hawking
has stated in our early evolution aggression gave definite survival
advantages and was imprinted on our genetic code by Darwinian natural
selection.
In previous posts I've discussed the large gap between our biological
evolution and cultural evolution. I've commented on how our biological
complexity lags very much behind our cultural complexity e.g. advances
in science, technology, and medicine. Can we continue with Darwinian
evolution e.g. the "adaptive" value of aggression founded in the context
of competition? In light of our advances in science, medicine, and
technology is aggression still adaptive for the human species?
This is not a ridiculous or absurd question but a question of the most
profound import. It is a particularly difficult question because all of
us have aggression and to concede aggression is no longer adaptive to
the human species is the equivalent of admitting we are genetically
short and it also means admitting the possibility of a genetically
improved human being through genetic engineering. Furthermore, it
necessitates acknowledging giving up an element which was so
tremendously crucial in the evolution of life.
But isn't evolution about change? We call ourselves humans but at one
time we evolved from reptiles. A doctor recently asked me, "What are
we"? I looked at him and said, "That's kind of hard. I think perhaps
that is impossible. Maybe gradual."
Can anybody doubt, assuming we don't destroy ourselves, that millions of
years from now whatever evolves from us won't bear any semblance to us?
Michael Ragland
The World's Top Ten Oil Exporting Countries
(1) Saudi Arabia
(2) FSU
(3) Norway
(4) Iran
(5) Venezuela
(6) UAE
(7) Nigeria
(8) Iraq
(9) Kuwait
(10) Mexico
The World's Ten Largest Net Oil Importers
(1) USA
(2) Japan
(3) Germany
(4) Korea
(5) France
(6) Italy
(7) Spain
(8) China
(9) India
(10) Netherlands
Stephen Hawking quotes from Larry King LIve Weekend December 25, 1999,
9:00 ET
"I think the biggest challenge we face is from our aggressive instincts.
In caveman -- or caveperson days, these gave definite survival
advantages and were imprinted in our genetic code by Darwinian natural
selection. But with nuclear weapons, they threaten our destruction. We
don't have time for Darwinian evolution to remove our aggression. We
will have to use genetic engineering."
"I think genetic engineering with humans is going to occur whether we
like it or not. It will change our standard of what is human but it will
be a gradual change because there's so much we don't know and because
humans take time to grow up. We won't change much in the next 100 years
but we might after that."
Phil Roberts, Jr.
Michael Ragland wrote:
>
> My primary research interest is the evolution of animal social behavior;
> however, my interests range from molecular evolution to sexual selection
> to phylogenetics. I also like to pursue both empirical and theoretical
> questions in my research. The organisms I have studied also comprise a
> diverse group, including fishes and primates.
>
Excuse if for repeats, but my server has been acting up.
I think this thread has missed a little detail. The primary reason for
aggression in animals pertains to physical needs. In man, aggression
is 9 times out of tend a matter of defending one's EMOTIONAL TURF, i.e,
one's need to maintain a sense of self-worth, significance, esteem,
etc. To this end, nature has exapted biological impulses to assist
in sheparding self worth (fear of asking for date, giving a speech,
anger over an insult, sex as a basis for endearment). But to assume
that man is just another animal is I believe more scientism than
science. If your mind is anything like the one I have access to,
99% of everything I think and do is in one form or another associated
with maximizing self-esteem, including my reluctance to admit that
that is what I am doing most of the time. Its explaining this little
detail within an evolutionary scenario which is what is necessary if
you want to understand human aggression IMHO.
PR
Michael Ragland
Excuse if for repeats, but my server has been acting up.
I think this thread has missed a little detail. The primary reason for
aggression in animals pertains to physical needs. In man, aggression is
9 times out of tend a matter of defending one's EMOTIONAL TURF, i.e,
one's need to maintain a sense of self-worth, significance, esteem, etc.
To this end, nature has exapted biological impulses to assist in
sheparding self worth (fear of asking for date, giving a speech, anger
over an insult, sex as a basis for endearment). But to assume that man
is just another animal is I believe more scientism than science. If your
mind is anything like the one I have access to, 99% of everything I
think and do is in one form or another associated with maximizing
self-esteem, including my reluctance to admit that that is what I am
doing most of the time. Its explaining this little detail within an
evolutionary scenario which is what is necessary if you want to
understand human aggression IMHO.
PR
In my opinion, it is quite clear man is another animal. Perhaps what you
object to is the term "just" another animal. There are differences
between animals and among animals of the same category e.g. primates and
breaking it down further to mammals. Human beings undoubtedly possess a
uniqueness to them but they have grossly blown it out of proportion..
The bottom line is we are more like other animals than not, from
chimpanzees down to flies in the dumpster. I don't see such awareness as
a threat to human self-esteem. In my opinion, acknowledging human
insignifigance in the universe is not self-deprecating. If there is one
thing which has been driven home to me since being on this newsgroup its
that in terms of evolution all life on earth is interwoven with each
other.
You write, "In man, aggression is 9 times out of tend a matter of
defending one's EMOTIONAL TURF, i.e, one's need to maintain a sense of
self-worth, significance, esteem, etc. To this end, nature has exapted
biological impulses to assist in sheparding self worth (fear of asking
for date, giving a speech, anger over an insult, sex as a basis for
endearment). If you look at human aggression collectively e.g. in terms
of politics, I think aggression is more than a matter of defending one's
"emotional turf". It is clearly expressed in conflicts over land,
resources, and ethnic background e.g. what clan, tribe, race, etc. you
belong to.
I've already stated in a previous post I think aggression can be
adaptive in some contemporary human circumstances. I think on the
"individual level" aggression can be the most adaptive. There is much to
say in protecting one's "emotional turf" to maintain and enhance a sense
of self worth, dignity, and self esteem. And yes,, nature has adapted
biological impulses to assist in sheparding self worth (fear of asking
for date, giving a speech, anger over an insult, sex as a basis for
endearment).
It's not that I've overlooked these things but that I'm concentrating on
the larger picture of aggression in our current evolution and asking the
reader whether aggression still has the evolutionary adaptive value it
once did. Regardless of one's answer, it doesn't require standing up and
saying, Okay, I'm not going to be aggressive anymore. I'm not going to
be a jerk sometimes."
Michael Ragland
Phil Roberts, Jr.
Michael Ragland wrote:
>
> In my opinion, it is quite clear man is another animal. Perhaps what you
> object to is the term "just" another animal. There are differences
> between animals and among animals of the same category e.g. primates and
> breaking it down further to mammals.
What other animal insists on justifying its actions, including justification
for staying alive itself (self-worth maximization manifested in needs
for love, attention, purpose, autonomy, religion, dignity, moral
integrity, meaning, etc. etc. etc.)?
"He, too [Ludwig Wittgenstein], suffered from depressions and for long
periods considered killing himself because he considered his life
worthless, but the stubbornness inherited from his father may have
helped him to survive" (Hans Sluga).
> Human beings undoubtedly possess a
> uniqueness to them but they have grossly blown it out of proportion..
Ahmen! That's because, unlike other species, we have a lifetime
project of avoiding 'feelings of worthlessness' and, for some of us,
this natural selection business is just one more nail in the coffin.
Now if someone could just explain why, I think we'd be all set,
along with coming to a much better understanding of human
aggression, IMHO.
"I have often felt as though I had inherited all the defiance and
all the passions with which our ancestors defended their Temple
and could gladly sacrifice my life for one great moment in
history" (Sigmund Freud).
> The bottom line is we are more like other animals than not, from
> chimpanzees down to flies in the dumpster. I don't see such awareness as
> a threat to human self-esteem. In my opinion, acknowledging human
> insignifigance in the universe is not self-deprecating. If there is one
> thing which has been driven home to me since being on this newsgroup its
> that in terms of evolution all life on earth is interwoven with each
> other.
>
zzzzzzz! I think I hear violins playing in the background. :)
I agree that so long as you and I contemplate
our insignificance in the abstract its not life threatening. However,
when your insignificance becomes a little more than an abstract
theory and enters your oval office of consciousness, when you begin
to REALIZE you are insignificant, such as when Betty Lou dumps you
for that nerd down the street, then I suspect we are talking something
a little different. And, I would maintain that, if your mind is
anything at all like mine, your entire life has been dedicated in
one form or another to maintaining your self-eseem, from taking a
dump in private to posting to this newsgroup, which is just
another way of saying that your whole life has been dedicated in
one form or another to sustaining your 'will to survive'.
There is no value-judgment more important to man -- no factor
more decisive in his psychological development and motivation --
than the estimate he passes on himself. This estimate is
ordinarily experienced by him, not in the form of a conscious,
verbalized judgment, but in the form of a feeling, a feeling
that can be hard to isolate and identify because he experiences
it constantly: it is part of every other feeling, it is involved
in his every emotional response. ... it is the single most
significant key to his behavior. (Nathaniel Branden).
> You write, "In man, aggression is 9 times out of tend a matter of
> defending one's EMOTIONAL TURF, i.e, one's need to maintain a sense of
> self-worth, significance, esteem, etc. To this end, nature has exapted
> biological impulses to assist in sheparding self worth (fear of asking
> for date, giving a speech, anger over an insult, sex as a basis for
> endearment)."
> If you look at human aggression collectively e.g. in terms
> of politics, I think aggression is more than a matter of defending one's
> "emotional turf".
'Terrorism is the result of poverty. Not a poverty of material
things, but rather a poverty of dignity' (Egyptian philosopher
on recent TV documentary on the roots of terrorism).
> It is clearly expressed in conflicts over land,
> resources, and ethnic background e.g. what clan, tribe, race, etc. you
> belong to.
But, unfortunately for your adpativeness argument, natural selection
doesn't operate at the level of the clan, tribe, race, etc. So its
actually maladaptive, as is the entire self-worth complex, come to
think of it.
Even with qualifications regarding the possibility
of group selection, the portrait of the biologically
based social personality that emerges is one of
predominantly self-serving opportunism _even_for_
_the_most_social_species_, for all species in which
there is genetic competition among the social co-
operators, that is, where all members have the chance
of parenthood (Donald Campbell).
>
> I've already stated in a previous post I think aggression can be
> adaptive in some contemporary human circumstances. I think on the
> "individual level" aggression can be the most adaptive.
More often than not aggression just triggers it in others and, rather
than two people attempting to resolve their conflict, they become
focused exclusively on winning. This is sad. But
then what else would you expect from a blind mechanical process
that has exapted biological impulses to assist in the defense of
emotional turf. Far better, in most circumstance, to let the
emotion pass and then go back and address the problem in as logical
and unemotional manner as possible, or at least that's certainly
been my experience
> There is much to
> say in protecting one's "emotional turf" to maintain and enhance a sense
> of self worth, dignity, and self esteem. And yes,, nature has adapted
> biological impulses to assist in sheparding self worth (fear of asking
> for date, giving a speech, anger over an insult, sex as a basis for
> endearment).
>
> It's not that I've overlooked these things but that I'm concentrating on
> the larger picture of aggression in our current evolution and asking the
> reader whether aggression still has the evolutionary adaptive value it
> once did. Regardless of one's answer, it doesn't require standing up and
> saying, Okay, I'm not going to be aggressive anymore. I'm not going to
> be a jerk sometimes."
>
On certain rare occasions it might be advantageous. For example, if you
were a spinless wimp and were repeatedly being subjected to emotional
abuse, then perhaps you might be better off in that you would at least
be communicating your feelings. Also, don't confuse my advice about
letting the emotion pass before instituting a logical solution with
a contention that one should attempt to control or ignore anger.
Although I would maintain that anger is not so much released as
obeyed, I also think its presence is AN IMPORTANT INDICATOR that
one's self-esteem is under threat and that, if not checked, can
result in a life threatening condition, but not from anything to
do with one's physical needs.
Virtually all psychologists recognize that man experiences a need
of self-esteem. But what they have not identified is the nature
of self-esteem, the reasons why man need it, and the conditions he
must satisfy if he is to achieve it. Virtually all psychologists
recognize, if only vaguely, that there is some relationship
between the degree of a man's self-esteem and the degree of his
mental health. But they have not identified the nature of that
relationship, nor the causes of it. Virtually all psychologists
recognize, if only dimly, that there is some relationship between
the nature and degree of a man's self-esteem and his motivation,
i.e., his behavior in the spheres of work, love and human
relationships. But they have not explained why, nor identified
the principle involved. (Nathaniel Branden).
Cheers!
PR
A Sketch of a Divergent Theory of Emotional Instability
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/dada/90/emostab.htm
William Morse
news:ba30p5$1fem$1...@darwin.ediacara.org:
> Michael Ragland wrote:
(snip)
> Virtually all psychologists recognize that man experiences a need
> of self-esteem. But what they have not identified is the nature
> of self-esteem, the reasons why man need it, and the conditions he
> must satisfy if he is to achieve it. Virtually all psychologists
> recognize, if only vaguely, that there is some relationship
> between the degree of a man's self-esteem and the degree of his
> mental health. But they have not identified the nature of that
> relationship, nor the causes of it. Virtually all psychologists
> recognize, if only dimly, that there is some relationship between
> the nature and degree of a man's self-esteem and his motivation,
> i.e., his behavior in the spheres of work, love and human
> relationships. But they have not explained why, nor identified
> the principle involved. (Nathaniel Branden).
Self esteem, at least on one rudimentary level, can be understood as
arising from the selective advantage of balancing two other factors: the
fairly universal (and obviously selective) drive for individual control
of the environment, and the drive (selective in social animals) to be
helpful to the group. When one is making good decisions ( and receiving
positive feedback from the group and from one's own perception of being
in control) one's self esteem should rise, making one more likely to be a
final arbiter of group decisions. When one is making bad decisions ( with
the corresponding negative feedback) one's self esteem should fall,
making one more likely to go along with the decision of someone else who
is doing a better job of decision making. It is unclear that self esteem
makes sense in a non-social animal (although at least some second-
guessing is obviously in order if decisions are leading to poor results).
Perhaps I am being excessively anthropomorphic, but cats are notorious
for having high self esteem no matter what. Dogs, on the other hand,
respond much more readily to both praise and criticism
Yours,
Bill Morse