How do we account for aggression towards others who pose no real threat to us? I'm talking here about hate crimes and the like. What do individuals stand to gain from aggressing towards those who are simply different?
I thought that it was an interesting choice on Buss for him to include coalitional alliances only in a section on Aggression and Warfare. This is just because I see it as being more important to understanding how group dynamics work rather than justifying how men engage in warfare as an evolved mechanism. More importantly, though is that evolutionarily, women are poorer at creating a group for a common goal than men are. More importantly, how does this reflect on women's only organizations, are they less well off than men's or how much more work do women have to do to make them similar to men's because this kind of group dynamic is not an evolved mechanism.
I think bullying in school is an interesting example of aggression. When I was much younger, I was bullied in a Jewish school I attended, and then I became a bully in middle school. A few years later, I matured and realized that this was a terrible way to obtain an education. That is why I was curious about the evolution behind bullying. It is so prevalent nowadays, but was it always this way? I also know that many years ago, there were some insanely strict teachers. I wonder if bullying was even an option during those times. Also, since bullying is an ongoing action, I was wondering if there was a difference in short term versus long term aggression against an individual. For long term aggression, like bullying, I feel like people can come to school in a different mood every single day. On the days where a bully had a good morning, is the bullying quite as intense? Is it more intense when the bully came to school after a bad morning? Lastly, if bullying does last for years, I was wondering how common it is that it results in homicides. Bullying in high school is dangerous, because the students are all older and stronger. When tempers flare, dangerous fights can result. If that bullying continues on after high school, that could be even more tragic.
If aggression is a solution to so many adaptive problems, why has it become so discouraged? Little boys who hit and fight are punished and told that fighting is bad, even though fighting is an evolved mechanism that has solved adaptive problems. Furthermore, why is it that women find male fighting attractive if it is a behavior that is so discouraged in childhood?
Are people more likely to get into fights with strangers (like in a bar brawl) than with people they know? Do people avoid fights with people they know because they have greater costs than benefits?
Is built up frustration and anger count as aggression? Or is aggression only when you act upon those frustrations?
I think Alex poses a very interesting question. Evolutionarily, hate crimes make no sense. In most instances the two groups involved in hate crimes are separate enough that members of the victimized group are not threatening to steal the women of the aggressors (so we can count out male jealousy as a motive). Hate crimes are also generally directed towards minorities(be it race, religion, etc.) so the group being attacked shouldn't pose a threat to fitness of the already dominant majority group. In these cases, is the hatred for the out-group so strong that committing these aggressive actions towards the out-group provides considerable gains in status?
I also found it very interesting that the only two species documented in using organized warfare were chimpanzees and humans. Why only these two species? Why don't bonobos, who are closer related to us than chimpanzees, display these aggressive warfare tactics as well?
How does evolutionary psychology explain the growing number of women joining the military to prepare to fight and even go to war these days?
Are there any cultures/known communities/socioeconomic classes that do not have aggressive episodes or have less? If so, what would their tactics be in solving the same adaptive problems?
I understand how playing sports is a way for humans to be aggressive in a socially accepted manner. Why do people become aggressive when cheering for a sports team, especially when it is a rival game match? They are not the ones that have a real stake in the outcome, and are just bystanders.
How does fairness factor into aggression and fighting? Let's say two men are fighting, and one is carrying a knife. If the weaponless man says, "fight like a man", would this prompt the man holding the knife to drop it and fight fairly? This sort of scenario appears pretty often in movies. However in reality, if placed in a life-or-death scenario, I don't think anyone would give up a fighting advantage for the sake of having a fair fight.
Since displays of aggression are seen as inappropriate in most contexts, what are some ways that we let out our aggression in a socially acceptable manner?
Aggression in today's society is advantageous to a certain extent. Too much aggression however is looked down upon. People are though to be incompetent if they are always aggressive. As Jackie said young children are taught to put a limit on aggression and stay away from physical confrontations. Why has society come to dislike too much aggression?
I think hate crimes and bullying are both very interesting topics to look into because they are basically just aggression towards others that are different from who we are. My question is why do they even exist? do they serve any evolutionary purpose or do they achieve any evolutionary goal? I don't really see why they should exist at all because there's no reason to hate on people who are just simply different in some aspects.
I think, similar to findings that have shown that men amp up risky behaviors around women, aggression is one of those risky factors. Instead of just being annoyed after some other guy challenges, maybe they're more likely to initiate a fight to impress surrounding women. I think the South has a more rigid chivalry structure and culture, where men act like Men and women act like Women in the traditional senses. They care more about honor and manners.
1) Is triggering men's aggression towards men due to sexual jealousy and competition influenced more by how patriarchal the society is, how conservative the society, or a fair combination of both?
2) Aggression in men may serve well to increase one's status and attract more short term mates, but how does it fare for long-term mating strategies? In many storylines, it seems like more laid-back men are found to be more desirable.
in continuation of alex's question, i would support marisa's proposition that hate crimes and such are essentially manifestations of in-group vs. out-group hostility and add that that aggression may get pent up by social norms, occasionally exploding violently. the status boost thing is likely a big factor, though i doubt it is consciously included in the equation.
ashley's questions about sports made me wonder: Would societies grow more aggressive if sports stopped happening? if sports have a 'venting' function, would developing a more effective venting pastime decrease violence?
