Mammalian Aggression • Hacker News Board

Re: Mammalian Aggression

#21

Post by vixen99 » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 12:37 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #15

ilaksh wrote: post #10

I have always felt that human behavior should be interpreted as a variant of mammal behavior. So social scientists would be informed by biologists.

20th-century eugenics discredited this concept so badly that it is now treated as radioactive waste. There was a lot of bad biology and sociology manufactured to justify supremacism.

'human behavior should be interpreted as a variant of mammal behavior' is a discredited concept. Is it? Given the closeness of the genetic codes of humans and animals and the proven relationship between genes and certain behavioural characteristics, this is difficult to defend though some do of course.

'New evidence on the link between genes, psychological traits, and political engagement'

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-lif...

Re: Mammalian Aggression

#22

Post by kashyapc » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 12:53 PM UTC

cbolton wrote: post #17

kashyapc wrote: post #11

Speaking of aggression, people often suspect the famous hormone testosterone as one of the prime causes. But Robert Sapolsky's (one of his papers is cited in OP's analysis) book, Behave shows something different: "While testosterone is inextricably tied to aggression, it is far less relevant to aggression than usually assumed." Instead of asking "What do individual levels of testosterone have to do with aggression?",…

> rather than causing X, testosterone amplifies the power of something else to cause X. That still means that testosterone is a cause of X, doesn't it? Not a deterministic cause of course, but in a causal graph there would be a directed path from "testosterone" to X?

It's worth reading the full summary point from the Sapolksy's book, from a chapter titled "Hours to Days Before" [a behavior occurs] — the realm of hormones:

"[...] Within the normal range, individual differences in testosterone levels don't predict who will be aggressive. Moreover, the more an organism has been aggressive, the less testosterone is needed for future aggression. When testosterone does play a role, it's facilitatory—testosterone does not "invent" aggression. It makes us more sensitive to triggers of aggression, particularly in those most prone to aggression. Also, rising testosterone levels foster aggression only during challenges to status. Finally, crucially, the rise in testosterone during a status challenge does not necessarily increase aggression; it increases whatever is needed to maintain status. In a world in which status is awarded for the best of our behaviors, testosterone would be the most prosocial hormone in existence."

Re: Mammalian Aggression

#23

Post by Blikkentrekker » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 12:56 PM UTC

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #20

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Speaking of aggression, people often suspect the famous hormone testosterone as one of the prime causes. But Robert Sapolsky's (one of his papers is cited in OP's analysis) book, Behave shows something different: "While testosterone is inextricably tied to aggression, it is far less relevant to aggression than usually assumed." It's a very common thing, even among serious scientists, to immediately go searching for…

as I'm getting older I'm making an effort to lift weights (just 20 mins with a deadlift every other day) in addition to cardio (running) and I notice my body really needs this to feel as good as I used to. The running gives me quick highs but the weight lifting does have an affect on my testosterone production and sex drive it seems. I was a little low few years ago (I tested because after reading pseudoscience resea…

> interesting. I wonder if this might have to do with school starting in autumn and kids born in autumn might then be more likely to start the year after - instead pushing themselves in for an early start this very year when they're legally able to start school. it would be obvious if kids that are actually a year older then the classmates had more time to be ready for school than their peers. Otherwise it would also be interesting to see this repeated in the Southern hemisphere where autumn is actually spring.

That is indeed the typically proffered explanation: they are older than their peers when being taught anything.

> Many Japanese I know would laugh at Astrology but are 100% convinced that blood-type affects personality.

It's interesting from my frame of reference, that Japanese fictional characters often defy any plausible racial phænotype, but are carefully designed around the stereotypes of their stated blood type.

Re: Mammalian Aggression

#24

Post by tomerico » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 1:05 PM UTC

vixen99 wrote: post #21

pjc50 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20th-century eugenics discredited this concept so badly that it is now treated as radioactive waste. There was a lot of bad biology and sociology manufactured to justify supremacism.

'human behavior should be interpreted as a variant of mammal behavior' is a discredited concept. Is it? Given the closeness of the genetic codes of humans and animals and the proven relationship between genes and certain behavioural characteristics, this is difficult to defend though some do of course. 'New evidence on the link between genes, psychological traits, and political engagement' https://www.cambridge.org/c…

The broader concept of genetics affecting human behavior is a social landmine.

Re: Mammalian Aggression

#25

Post by warlog » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 1:29 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #15

ilaksh wrote: post #10

I have always felt that human behavior should be interpreted as a variant of mammal behavior. So social scientists would be informed by biologists.

20th-century eugenics discredited this concept so badly that it is now treated as radioactive waste. There was a lot of bad biology and sociology manufactured to justify supremacism.

I think late 20th c. actual science discredited early 20th c. pseudo science.

Re: Mammalian Aggression

#26

Post by ilaksh » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #15

ilaksh wrote: post #10

I have always felt that human behavior should be interpreted as a variant of mammal behavior. So social scientists would be informed by biologists.

20th-century eugenics discredited this concept so badly that it is now treated as radioactive waste. There was a lot of bad biology and sociology manufactured to justify supremacism.

Wow, I had not thought of that angle. I was really thinking in terms of drawing parallels between humans in general (as a single group) and different species of animal. The idea of pointing at genes to suggest that certain populations are fundamentally different didn't occur to me when I wrote that.

It was really just the basic idea of saying "look at what most mammals do, and why we think they do it - wait, all humans do that also!".

Re: Mammalian Aggression

#27

Post by sethammons » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 2:19 PM UTC

cbolton wrote: post #19

Haunted_Cabbage wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the exponent of a variable make the variable large or does it describe the characteristics of how it gets large?

I would say the exponent of a variable makes (contributes to making) the result large.

What if the base is less than one?

Re: Mammalian Aggression

#28

Post by rossdavidh » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 2:34 PM UTC

kashyapc wrote: post #11

Speaking of aggression, people often suspect the famous hormone testosterone as one of the prime causes. But Robert Sapolsky's (one of his papers is cited in OP's analysis) book, Behave shows something different: "While testosterone is inextricably tied to aggression, it is far less relevant to aggression than usually assumed." Instead of asking "What do individual levels of testosterone have to do with aggression?",…

My first thought on reading the article's four kinds of aggression, is that the difference among them as to whether or not testosterone is associated with might explain some of the differences that different research(ers) finds. If you're studying different categories, or worse yet lumping them all together, you may miss an important affect, or apply one to categories that it doesn't belong in.

Re: Mammalian Aggression

#29

Post by Haunted_Cabbage » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

cbolton wrote: post #19

Haunted_Cabbage wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the exponent of a variable make the variable large or does it describe the characteristics of how it gets large?

I would say the exponent of a variable makes (contributes to making) the result large.

Given that a negative exponent makes a result smaller, I'd say that it describes rate at which it'll change.

Re: Mammalian Aggression

#30

Post by afpx » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

kashyapc wrote: post #11

Speaking of aggression, people often suspect the famous hormone testosterone as one of the prime causes. But Robert Sapolsky's (one of his papers is cited in OP's analysis) book, Behave shows something different: "While testosterone is inextricably tied to aggression, it is far less relevant to aggression than usually assumed." Instead of asking "What do individual levels of testosterone have to do with aggression?",…

If I remember the book correctly, Sapolsky goes further and claims that Testosterone regulates pro-social behavior. But, “pro-social” is culturally dependent. For example, in one culture, it may mean being more nurturing. In another, being more aggressive and violent. But, it’s always about “climbing the ladder”.