Theory on why males reared without male influence tend to be more aggressive

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Shawn34m, Apr 5, 2003.

  1. Shawn34m Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    74
    No serious scientific mind disputes that males brought up without enough male influence tend to be more aggressive. This is well documented in the animal kingdom, as well as in modern society. Not to say they always are, but there is a strong correlation.

    So everyone that disagrees, please utilize your back arrow on your browser now.

    The meaningful reason that we see this in all societies, as well as in the animal kingdom is that there is a valid biological reason for it.

    Throughout the history of societies, man has had to compete for resources. This among other reasons is why we have had so many wars among nations, and in earlier times -- in tribes and micro societies. And to compound the problem, even in ancient times males would not always sick around.

    The result of this is that there were a myriad of times in the evolution of man that a significant number of adult males were killed off, or simply left. To compensate for this, evolution has engineered a way to make young males more able to defend, and more willing to fight. The unfortunate consequence in modern society is that these males are no longer needed to be able to defend or fight. So what we are left with is another throwback from earlier times in which we must deal with and understand.

    So the meaningful reason is a consequence of evolution.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2003
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. apendrapew Oral defecator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    577
    Is this a theory you came up with by yourself? I'm just asking because it makes a lot of sense. In fact, I have a theory extremely similar to it that I put on my own personal website. I wrote this on the day of the 9/11 trajedy.

    This is what I came to. I thought about how humans developed and how they became how they are. For simplicity's sake, I'll say we were animals that were very smart, but that alone wasn't enough to survive. (I know this sounds retarded, but bear with me on this) So we evolved egos, which is a false identity. We became identified with the fact that we were smart and knew how to survive. If something else threatened our identities, it would motivate us to become greater and rise above the rest. This happened to us humans, and now we are the dominant species on the planet Earth. But, now that we've become great, we don't need the egos anymore, however they have been branded into our DNAs, our personalities. We're stuck with them. So now that we have the planet dominated, what else is there to do? Dominate each other, of course. We are killing each other off now as I speak. We were just attacked, thousands dead, now we want vengeance and to kill people to compensate for our loss. This will all continue for years to come.

    Pretty soon, it will be like we're back at the beginning of evolution, and we'll be back at struggling for survival again, desperate for a new adaptation. Eventually, we'll find it. We will then know how to live our lives with ease, and with grace. There will be no memory of this cruel, hostile place.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sargentlard Save the whales motherfucker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698
    My U.S government teacher in high school used the same concept as descibed here to explain why Most black women were such strong mothers and also why they were very strong in character. He basically sated that in slavery times when Black men and women were not allowed to even procreate and yet black women still had childern the men often weren't there to help the mother take care of the child. Often the men in the relationship were moved somewhere else or didn't even want to take care of the child in the first place. The mother was left alone to take care of a child in a hostile enviroment but also the child grew up strong and more hostile in a such a enviroment. Not only males but also females.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Shawn34m Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    74
    Yes I did!

    I did come up with that myself. I'm kind of proud of it too, because I think it is accurate. I have no problem in the political correctness of it for more then one reason. 1. I think that we need to be able to find the root of all problems -- even if they are uncomfortable to think or talk about. 2. I believe that I am partially a victim of not having a male role model much of my adolescence.
    I think what you said - your theory is interesting! I'm going to give some thought to it. Thank you for your comment.

     
  8. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    It's a well known anecedote that "nobody disputes" translates into "I'm too stupid and lazy to find evidence".

    This hardly answers the question, now does it?

    Not to mention the fact that you've shown no evidence, none whatsoever, to support your theory.

    They weren't allowed to have children yet they still had children? Bully for them!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    *hits the back button on his browser*
     
  10. Shawn34m Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    74
    I'm not going to argue with you guys,

    You're obviously way too smart for me. I'm quite impressed I'll tell you.
     
  11. sargentlard Save the whales motherfucker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698

    Yes, that's why they beaten and punishead. I believe the Jim Crow laws forbade for slaves to get amrried and have childern without the permission of their masters.
     
  12. Shawn34m Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    74
    If you're not well read enough to know

    that males reared without male influence and aggressive behavior have a high correlation coefficient, I'm very sorry for you. I'm not going to look it up for you. It's very well known though. African elephants reared without males are extremely aggressive ect. Look it up your selves. I already have done research to my satisfaction -- thanks.

     
  13. rexagan Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    i partially agree with the theory, in that, in my personal observations, males raised in the absence of other males (authoritative males especially) tend to be more uncomfortable and unsure of themselves around other males, therefore, possibly increasing aggressive behaviour toward other men and especially against woman authority. just a thought.
     
  14. Xenu BBS Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    706
    Psychology is my main study and sorry, never heard of this. It would be interesting to see some data on this. Even if this is true in the "wild kingdom" doesn't mean it can be implied to humanity. It sounds more like a social thing than a biological/evolutionary thing.

    I could make a case that single mom, only son families have less aggressive males. This seems more in tune with data on aggression to me...
     
  15. Shawn34m Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    74
    Yes you could. I agree

    But as you and I know -- there are a myriad of things that affect human behavior. The case you say you could make - I think you could make a good case - but this capitalizes on another commonly known psy phenomenon: Birth order psy. So you see there are many variables. Many. The question turns into: Is the child in your scenario better or worse off then an only male child raised by a Mom and dad or just by a dad? It is not politically correct -- to say this but the fact is the latter 2 scenarios are the best for the child. I'm a realist and will follow the facts wherever they lead me. There is data to back this up. The political climate limits our interpretation. If we are not honest with ourselves, we will never address the true problems. People are always wondering - How do we better deal with the problems of society. I say open your eyes and do not be afraid to see. I don't like what I see sometimes - But I am always honest about what I see. This is the key to progress in the social sense.

     
  16. Charles Fleming Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    225
    [sic], ignore.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2003

Share This Page