Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" is a great book and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in human evolution or general diet. This article however, is sophomoric.

Anyone interested in the origins of human society and violence should also read "The World Until Yesterday" by Jared Diamond, "The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl, "Tribe" by Sebastian by Junger and " Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland".

One problem with TFA, male Bonobos exist and do not act like male Chimps. Why? Furthermore, human females are not that different from human males. How might this change the pretext of the article? Human males and females are more alike than different, except on the fringes where a tiny percentage of males are much more violent (think of the most violent criminals). Do male humans tolerate the most violent males? Also, do "alpha" males chimps, stay alpha for very long if they wield too much violence? Must alpha male chimps maintain the support of the females? Do some research. See for yourself.

Also, what is the meaning of alpha in this article? The "arch-reactive aggressor"? In humans? So are alphas the most violent or the most respected? Could the alpha not be the most violent but instead have the respect of the most violent? How might that happen? Executioners? Try again.

To add personal anecdote: Most of us live in such relatively peaceful environments that we've completely lost touch with how the power dynamics of physical violence work in humans. We have mostly a school-yard version of reality. A society where "words" are violence further obscures the mechanics of physical violence.

Truly dealing in violence, absent of any law or government, is like eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Once you taste it your eyes are opened to a whole world right within ours which no one understands. We in the west live in a total bubble, so much so that we don't understand simple danger. The typical "active shooter" drill is basic evidence of this fact. It's a ridiculous and dangerous model in the face of true unencumbered violence. It is designed to keep schools from getting sued, not keeping children alive. You didn't know that because you've never had to kick in a door and kill as many people as possible (sickening I know).

Furthermore, once you understand violence truly, living in modern western society is like being an extraterrestrial in human skin. It is completely bizarre. This article is candy for those in the bubble.




> "The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"

This is known to be bogus by most experts, though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

> Jaynes's hypothesis remains controversial. The primary scientific criticism has been that the conclusions drawn by Jaynes had no basis in neuropsychiatric fact.[14]


You are correct. It is, however, a fascinating journey through consciousness.


ok. You've convinced me of the antecedent of the article and book: that we've found ourselves deliberately or accidentally in a society without true violence, and even largely without capacity for violence. Yet there is no alternative consequent, just some disdain for the fact that we have peaceful overtones in our culture.

But do we? I get it, to a certain extent. I find deep connection when I fight in the gym, and it scratches an itch that I can't explain. We still have war, and still play at war in sports, video games, and TV/movies. We still idolize the scene in the Christmas Story where the bully gets his nose bloodied by reactive violence. We love to commit genocide against aliens, as long as they punch first.

I think we subconsciously teach (in all these) violent response to aggressors. But we've decided that violence is a tool for retribution against aggressors (them), not a tool for dealing with in-group disputes (us).

TFA equated capital punishment with ostracism. One of us becomes an outside. (We don't do that, on penalty of prison or death).

That's the point, to me. Preservation of the groups members by minimizing in-group competition makes the group more resilient against attacks by other groups. In a purely game-theoretic sense, This seems like an optimal strategy.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: