Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#61

Post by photojosh »

Toine wrote: post #50

This is just one more "proof" of René Girard's mimetic theory. The scapegoat mechanism at the core of all human societies was heavily explained and documented 50 years ago. René Girard, whose theories heavily influenced the world vision of Peter Thiel and many more, is still dramatically absent in this kind of articles. I'm not sure why. His mimetic theory absolutely revolutionized the field of anthropology, theology…

Same here, last year I devoured tons of writing on mimetic theory. And now I'm moving on to think about how we reconcile mimetic theory with theories of origin of consciousness, so this article was quite useful.

Where I would push back slightly on your comment: what's described in the article isn't scapegoating in the Girardian sense of the word. Because if when a man kills multiple others, then is killed for doing so, he actually is guilty (and a scapegoat isn't). But... it is likely rather the source of the development of scapegoating.

I think that scapegoating then develops when there is chaos in a society that isn't caused by the actions of an individual or the individual responsible can't be discovered. These primitive humans has seen already that violence/chaos can be stopped by putting an end to the cause of it, such as in the case of a violent man. There's chaos, there must be a cause, so who do we blame? Violá, our scapegoat.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#62

Post by Toine »

devoply wrote: post #55
Toine wrote: post #50

This is just one more "proof" of René Girard's mimetic theory. The scapegoat mechanism at the core of all human societies was heavily explained and documented 50 years ago. René Girard, whose theories heavily influenced the world vision of Peter Thiel and many more, is still dramatically absent in this kind of articles. I'm not sure why. His mimetic theory absolutely revolutionized the field of anthropology, theology…

I really wonder how these ideas are such a revelation, we are still domesticating people just look at the prison system, what do you think that's all about?

I'm not sure I can summarize such a global theory in a comment, but basically, he started from a simple truth : the mimetic nature of humans. You want what you want, not because of the intrinsic qualities of objects, but because you're imitating others. Inevitably, this leads to rivalry and conflict. Animals deal with this violence with what we call dominance patterns : the loser will very often yield to the now dominant animal, and the entire society will be ruled with complex hierarchies based on this. However, humans are too mimetic to be able to end violence like that. In our species, unrestricted violence ends in death. It can then rapidly spread across the community and bring chaos. The way primitive humans have dealt with this conflict is to turn the blame on someone else, the scapegoat, which suddenly turns into a primitive sacred being. At first, he is seen as an evil being responsible for all the chaos. Then, after being sacrificed, he is seen as the ultimate savior of the community. You now have the mechanism creating primitive religions.

English isn't my native language, I hope I've been clear enough so that you can imagine the enormous consequences of such a ground-breaking theory on every aspect of human life. I suggest reading the books.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#63

Post by mirimir »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #10
mirimir wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. But there's no reason that nobility could not also have domesticated peasants. However, it's arguably not about the group "pruning of the most violent individuals". Rather, it's about pruning individuals with low social status who resort to violence. That is, individuals who don't follow orders. Morgan's Black Man (aka 13 ) is an interesting take on this.

>> But there's no reason that nobility could not also have domesticated peasants. Also, no reason that the peasants have enabled the mobility to be in control so that it would be easier to domesticate each other. You seem like a person who's just read a book and are trying to mention it everywhere.

Sure, that's possible.

And yes, I do mention science fiction and fantasy ~frequently. And I do like Richard Morgan's stuff, and people who are independent, and often violent, are a recurring theme.

But actually, it's Matthew Stover's "Caine" series that I love the best. His central theme is Aleister Crowley's Law of Thelema: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ... Love is the law, love under will."

And there's a key point that's often missed by assholes. If you habitually hurt others, except in self defense, others will choose to exile, imprison or kill you. Because, you know, that's an expression of their love for each other.

And if I were really going on about it, I'd get into William S. Burroughs' stuff about killing the assholes (5-10% of the population) who impose their will on others. But I won't.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#64

Post by yesenadam »

Componica wrote: post #60
yesenadam wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might be a silly question, but what is "the TFA"? Googling didn't help me.

The F'ing Article

ah ok thanks. Hopefully that's not the new standard way of referring to the article! Or worse, "the TFA".

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#65

Post by [deleted] »

yesenadam wrote: post #57
navaati wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my reading of the TFA, it's not. It's the idea that less aggressive individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males by the females, partly by pruning of the most violent individuals by the whole group. Nothing to do with the domestication of one group by another.

Might be a silly question, but what is "the TFA"? Googling didn't help me.

[deleted]

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#66

Post by klyrs »

vmh1928 wrote: post #58

Bonobos compete for genetic dominance at the level of sperm. They are what we would call promiscuous, the females mate with multiple partners. He with the greatest volume of seamen and sperm washes out the competition. There's no need to be aggressive in person. Bonobo testicles are very large compared to, say, humans. Southern right whales are very similar in their mating habits. On the other hand, species where the…

So you're saying that it's the culture of everybody fucking everybody that brings world peace. Hippie

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#67

Post by sadris »

Yeah of course. Violence, like all traits, is moderately heritable 1. Europeans engaged in a multi century eugenics program after the Christian church took over society 2. They executed 2% of their most violent every generation. This resulted in a severe decline in criminality across the European population group.

1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-011-9483-0

2. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474704915013001...

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#68

Post by porpoisely »

dTal wrote: post #48
porpoisely wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that theory about female selection being pushed a lot lately, but it's a fairly easily debunked theory. Female selection didn't occur in human society. Females didn't get to choose who they married. Rather it was the men who decided which females marry which male. Also, there is far less diversity in the Y chromosome than the X. The best possible explanation is during ancient tribal war, the winning side killed…

To suggest that female selection simply "didn't occur in human society" is just nonsense. Utter nonsense. Over what evolutionary time period are you prepared to make this bold claim? Assuming you agree that females do select mates now , when in your opinion did the female-selection revolution come? Presumably it was already well established by the time Homer wrote of Penelope selecting suitors nearly 3 thousand years…

Homer also wrote of Helen of Troy who was abducted and raped by Paris. Also a major western history stems from a couple of ancient greek warriors fighting over booty ( aka women they got from conquest ).

Also, Penelope didn't choose the least violent man. Her criteria for marriage was the most masculine man who could use Odysseus's bow and shoot an arrow through twelve axe heads. So even if you are correct, my position still stands.

If you want to argue that female selection within narrow limits occurred, then so be it. That's not much of a selection. Using that reasoning, two male lion brothers taking over a pride, killing all the cubs and giving the females the option of mating between them is female selection.

I can't believe you are using greek myth and myth based on "nobility" to argue human selection. Maybe it's just me, but a british princess given the choice of marrying a german prince or a french prince doesn't represent "female selection" to me.

As I said, we have genetic evidence ( less diverse Y chromosomes ), historical evidence and biological evidence proving that the dominant evolutionary cause isn't female selection. It is males dominating and keeping their competitors away.

Look at the genetic "diversity" of mexico after the spanish conquest. Nearly 70% of the Y chromosomes are from european ancestory, 30% of the Y chromosome is from native ancestory, nearly 100% of the X chromosomes are from native ancestry. Do you think it was by "female selection" or the fact that spaniards brutally ruled over the natives and had the power to kill and mate with whomever they wanted?

A disproportionate portion black male Y chromosomes in the US are of european ancestry. Do you think it was because black slaves had a choice or because the white male slavers with the power had the power to have their way?

Do you think the genetic makeup of the US is a result of native female selection or because of conquest, genocide, rape, etc? Do you think pocahontas asked to be kidnapped, taken from her baby and her native husband and shipped to england?

Whatever female selection occurred happened within a male mating framework. That's my point. And the overarching driving factor in human evolution has been driven by males. You can't explain human history without it. You can't explain the current geography without it. The US isn't mostly white because of female selection. China isn't mostly chinese because of female selection.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#69

Post by porpoisely »

simonh wrote: post #51
porpoisely wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But "tribalism" predates humans. Living in groups is a trait that humans inherited, not something we developed. Now we may have refined it and grown it to form tribe of tribes, but the point still stands. When it comes to humans, we have to talk in terms of groups because that's the human experience. Humans don't exist outside of a group. Humans never have existed outside of a group. The "group" is what we inherited…

Domesticated isn’t the same thing as non-violent or even ‘tame’ as the term is usually used. It doesn’t even mean civilised. Rottweilers are domesticated. A small pet dog ate half the face off its owner, while she was alive, in France when she collapsed at home and it got hungry, yet it was a normal domestic pet dog. I would agree that communal group living as seen in many primates is a precursor to the sort of domes…

I didn't say domestication was the same as non-violent or "tame" or civilized. I didn't even mention the word.

My point is that humans were tamed through brutality and force and bread and circuses. And just like you little dog, when we run out of bread and circuses or an authority, we are capable of being violent again.

It seems like you want to disagree with me but everything you wrote agrees with me so I'm not sure how to respond.

Post reply on HN