Fighting naturally/fighting smart

[Brad462]

I propose a cage deathmatch between me and tyler.  Survival of the fittest, right? Might makes right!

[Brad462]

Sorry, to be totally honest I have been drinking.  Forgive me... 

[TylerDurden]

Eveheart is being a bit  under-emphasised as to the effect of girl on girl bullying. Sure, there is less physical  violence for girl on girl violence per se, but it is still very harmful as it constitutes  mainly  subtle psychological harm  re isolation/exclusion etc.

[eveheart]

Eveheart is being a bit  under-emphasised as to the effect of girl on girl bullying. Sure, there is less physical  violence for girl on girl violence per se, but it is still very harmful as it constitutes  mainly  subtle psychological harm  re isolation/exclusion etc.

I made no claim that girl bullying has no effect! Bullying, physical or not, has victims. I merely said that aggression by females may look different - it may be physically non-violent - but it is bullying!

However, I do maintain that martial art is a form of fighting that does not involved aggression, so I don't think that social aggression must be present for this form of physical culture to exist.

Says Wikipedia,

Martial arts are codified systems and traditions of combat practices, which are practiced for a variety of reasons: self-defense, competition, physical health and fitness, entertainment, as well as mental, physical, and spiritual development.

Although the term martial art has become associated with the fighting arts of eastern Asia, it was originally referred to the combat systems of Europe as early as the 1550s. The term is derived from Latin, and means "arts of Mars", the Roman god of war. Some authors have argued that fighting arts or fighting systems would be more appropriate on the basis that many martial arts were never "martial" in the sense of being used or created by professional warriors.

And I do maintain that physical aggression is not the only form of social aggression, and heightened aggression may be present where not a drop of blood is shed, therefore measuring HG aggression in terms of war has no place in a discussion of martial arts. Physical, mental and emotional aggression should be used as the measure of aggression. Viewed by themselves, combat practices do not indicate that aggression is present.

[Iguana]

Sorry about this, I really ought to read everything I cite but I live in a time-poor environment these days! I realise that the conclusion does not make any sense at all, though. I mean, if humans split off from the ancestors of chimps and bonobos and then the bonobos split off from the chimps, then, logically via deduction, bonobos must have far more in common with common chimps than humans and humans must be more distant, genetically, from bonobos than from common chimpanzees. I mean it is simple maths. No matter.

Yeah, but you are so sure to be right that you cite any study without even reading it, assuming that it can’t possibly tell anything opposite to what you believe! 

Next, I can’t follow your above reasoning: according to this paper there was a common ancestor to chimps, bonobos and humans. The humans branch would have split off first and the chimps and bonobos branches would have split off latter. How can you deduce from it that “humans must be more distant, genetically, from bonobos than from common chimpanzees.”? Sorry, “simple maths” would mean it’s rather 50% - 50%!

The study you referred to says :
« No parsimonious reconstruction of the social structure and behavioural patterns of the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and bonobos is therefore possible. That ancestor may in fact have possessed a mosaic of features, including those now seen in bonobo, chimpanzee and human. »

Genetic analysis apart, bonobos are obviously more human-like than chimps in almost every aspect. http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_to_be_sexual_omnivores
Christopher Ryan: Are we designed to be sexual omnivores?
A very important fact he underlines :
Chimps 40%
Bonobos 90%
Humans 100%
Can you guess what this percentiles are?

My experiences of humans being an aggressive, violent species go a very LONG way back to the age of 4, which is why I stated that my views had not changed to any extent on this issue. Perhaps, before my mind was fully formed by age 4 , I was under the immature impression that humans were all nice etc. at the time. Even then, I doubt it, as I vaguely recall incidents where I cried after being slapped for a misdeameanour by my mother, for example. So, if humans are such a lovey-dovey so-called "gentle" species, if only as regards their own species, how come I was in 2 schools which had endemic bullying to a horrific extent? Why is it that so many bullied victims at school commit suicide? If intraspecies love is so widespread, why is there  frequent bullying at the workplace? Blaming this on a change in diet from raw to cooked or on switching to a grains-filled diet, just does not make sense. When I switched from cooked to raw, my hormonal levels went down and I became calmer  as I'd had acute anxiety among a 100 other conditions up till then, however, I was still perfectly capable of feeling homicidal thoughts towards one group of odious  relatives who have been constantly  trying to rob me of my  property rights over the last 12 years. Indeed, now that my hormones are in balance, I would confidently state that feelings of vengeance on my part are more clear-cut and overt than in pre-raw diet times.

You misunderstand me. As I see it, the food factor is not directly the main culprit: it is so mostly indirectly by having led to the Neolithic-agrarian societal structures and organization, which are heavily conflicting with the human nature.
     
Don’t you realize that everything you cite here is happening in our current society organization, which has its roots in the Neolithic society structures, that all this is precisely due to the Neolithic / agrarian / modern insanity, misery, ubiquitous sexual frustrations and neurosis into which agriculture has driven us? Nothing of that sort would have happened in a HGs tribe of less than 150 individuals where private property was something never heard of.   

  It is actually more accepted now that humans, not climate, killed the megafauna in the Palaeolithic era. As regards climate, it can affect aggressiveness. In the case of the Inuit, they had scarce resources so had to cooperate with each other in order to survive - any warfare in the Arctic would have led even the winners to die out fast.

Perhaps. The megafauna disappeared about 60,000 years ago if I remember correctly. Fire was mastered then. 

Put simply, no. I have seen how male lions, for example, routinely kill the infants of a captured pride in order to get the female lions to ovulate and  create their own offspring. I have seen male bears do the same. Plenty of intra-species violence exists in Nature if one looks for it a tiny bit. Competition among males for females during mating season can be pretty fierce, and even  rather deadly, for example.

Yes, some animals kill newborns.
http://www.livescience.com/2053-animals-eat-offspring.html
Why Some Animals Eat Their Offspring
http://bigcatrescue.org/why-big-cats-kill-their-cubs/
Why Big Cats Kill Their Cubs

This doesn’t mean that intra-species killings (of newborns excepted) are the norm rather than exceptions. You and Van have a strong propensity to be blind for facts contradicting your preconceived ideas, accepting only to see the ones that comfort you in your beliefs. In this case, it really looks like you didn’t even read the short texts I took the time to search and cite or quote for you. 

I also find it amazing that both of you, being strong proponents of a raw paleo diet, fail to see its far-reaching implications on how we understand the global human and ecological situation. For example, we no longer have to be ashamed to be a human being. 

[van]

 you have developed such a skill at being so passive in your condescending assertions.  So let's go back in time.  Let's say you and your tribe have been tracking a great wooly mammoth, or a herd, and your attempts have been in vain so far.  Your tribe is hungry, very hungry, and you follow that herd along it's migration path and end up in unknown hunting grounds.  And there you meet another hunting party, one which you've never met before and they are hungry...  You can see from this simple beginning that hunting grounds alone can be reason for fighting each other, especially when to the point of starving.  Or simply establishing hunting grounds, say near a watering hole where animals must come to drink.  During times of draught, guess who else will show at 'Your' watering hole?   
    I didn't think that I'd get back into this one, but to imagine that pre cooking and farming, that life was a garden of eden because we could simply feed ourselves instinctively and everything would be dandy seems just a little too handy.
   I wasn't around then, but go back some hundreds of years,  I don't think it seems unlikely that one would find very peaceful agricultural communities living harmoniously.  And yet history tells us that thousands of these communities were pillaged and raped by those who wanted to conquer and acquire.  But that pillaging has little to do with how peaceful that community was.    My point;   people can live together in community, eating cooked food, growing crops, and not be corrupted by at least those two aspects.     So, yes;  throw in an industrialized overpopulated society where real-estate  is sky high, food is tainted, people are overworked and primarily working for someone else, and for Inger's sake, throw in wi-fi, and yes you've got a mess.    But to blame it on cooked food and the fact they are eating farmed vegetables and grain and raising animals, seems like you want to believe a fairy tale called 'Instincto', by GCB. 

[Iguana]

On your request, I provided several references to support what I wrote (and there are plenty others available). You have not thanked me,  you don't even bother to read them, you call them "speculations" and you go on with your own speculations which you don't support by a single reference!

[nummi]

One thing I've noticed almost all (if not in fact all) "scientific"-minded people do is provide the opinions of other people without really giving any original to their own. This is why providing "links" and such is simply keeping yourself in darkness and not really developing your own personage and individuality. If you base yourself and your worldview on the views of others, then... do I really have to explain this?
If you really knew what you were talking about, or anyone knew what they were talking about, then you, or anyone, would never have a reason to provide any data or opinions external to themselves.
If you find something new, something that makes sense to you and you perceive objectively (very many people have issues with objective thinking...) that it is beyond your previous understandings, then incorporate it into your being. And next time the topic comes up you will have no reason to find some external "supportive links", because you know it is a true part of yourself, until something better comes up and then you improve/upgrade yourself.
This "who's got the biggest supportive 'evidence'?" pissing-contest is a vivid sign of blindness and unawareness.

Providing any links is futile and pointless. Say your own mind, only your own, and original to yourself, from within yourself. Otherwise you do not know what you are doing. And if you don't find it from within yourself... then you have things to learn, and true learning not merely parroting others.
There are scenarios where providing external links and such is important and necessary, but not in this context.

[Iguana]

Yeah, according to you, you can stay at home, be an expert on everything, knowing everything by your own powerful mind without having ever been out on the field to check the facts, in this case excavate and examine skeletons and other remains or go and stay for months in remote jungles to observe apes, if I understand you well. You don’t need to rely on the expertise of people involved in research, anthropologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, experts on animal behavior, etc… No, no, you are so much more clever and knowledgeable than all these bunch of idiots scientists and specialists spending their lives on the field to observe and study. LOL.

I finally think JK decision to stop posting is wise, after all. I should rather do the same and proceed with my work instead of wasting energy here in stupid endless-loop discussions with thankless guys who know it all better. 

[JeuneKoq]

Good point on that last post, Iguana. Of course it's thoughtless to take anything scientist/specialist publish for granted, as there is always a possibly of false interpretation of a phenomenon, and some studies are funded by groups that only wish for their own version of the truth to be heard... But outside of that some, if not most scientist are truly passionate and thoughtful about the subject they study, especially in fields where later money gain is hardly expected from their discoveries (anthropology, zoology, paleoanthropology, as opposed to pharmacology, genetic engineering, etc...).

It's like saying all politicians are inherently bad/corrupt, which is of course false. I've shared classes with political science students when studying anthropology, and the people I met are actually idealists, and want to serve society in a positive way.

After I had this issue posting the answer I wrote to BadBoy's comment two days ago, I decided it would be a good opportunity to get some work done and have a break from the computer. I will answer BadBoy's comment, and maybe address some arguments I find especially mistaken, without going to much into speculative debate (Hey, I'm guilty of sometimes speculating too!).

For now I will just say that it is as appropriate to compare humans with chimps or bonobos, as it is to compare pandas with grizzlys. Actually, grizzlys and pandas are probably genetically closer than we are with our great ape cousins.
And come to think of it, just notice how bonobos and chimps are so "socially" different while being so genetically close, and evolving in such as similar environment: that is, the African tropical forest...
Therefor it makes even less sense to try and match one of those specie's social behavior with our own.

[TylerDurden]

Next, I can’t follow your above reasoning: according to this paper there was a common ancestor to chimps, bonobos and humans. The humans branch would have split off first and the chimps and bonobos branches would have split off latter. How can you deduce from it that “humans must be more distant, genetically, from bonobos than from common chimpanzees.”? Sorry, “simple maths” would mean it’s rather 50% - 50%!

  Ok, here goes:-  First there is a common ancestor of all primates. Then 2 branches fork off, one of which is the ancestor of common chimpanzees and bonobos, and the other branch leads to humans. Then there is a further branch when the bonobos split off from the common chimpanzees, supposedly because they were genetically isolated from other chimps because of the Congo river. So, from humans to bonobos requires 2 evolutionary branches, but from humans to common chimpanzees requires only one branch.Ergo, humans ought to be genetically closer to common chimpanzees. The further genetic isolation of the Bonobos also confirms my point.

Don’t you realize that everything you cite here is happening in our current society organization, which has its roots in the Neolithic society structures, that all this is precisely due to the Neolithic / agrarian / modern insanity, misery, ubiquitous sexual frustrations and neurosis into which agriculture has driven us? Nothing of that sort would have happened in a HGs tribe of less than 150 individuals where private property was something never heard of.

Bullying occurs even among wild animals. Wild animals also  often  mark their own territories and will fight and even kill any of their own species who intrude into that territory, much like humans do. That is common behaviour. Then there is fighting between males for mates which can get very bloody in many cases. Wild animals will also fight members of their own species in order to gain higher social status etc.

Also a relevant quotation:-

However, other sources claim that most Paleolithic Groups may have in fact been larger, more complex, more sedentary, and more warlike than most contemporary hunter-gatherer societies due to Paleolithic hunter-gatherers occupying more fertile and resource abundant areas than most modern hunter-gatherers who have been pushed into more marginal habitats by agricultural societies.

taken from:- 

http://www.reference.com/browse/paleolithic+period

The gist of the above suggests that humans become far more warlike when possessing abundant resources and large numbers  but, usually, become a lot more peaceful when population densities and resources are very low. So, the Noble Savage myth is not relevant to this issue.

Hmm, I find I agree with Iguana, Van , and nummi about some of the stuff they have said. I mean, I do not agree that palaeo humans were peaceful as the evidence seems against this notion and logic dictates that humans are going to fight over resources in any era, but I do find that modern living since the Neolithic era has been particularly destructive to our human nature, so that we are warped examples of our palaeo forebears.At the same time, I do not think that current "free love" sexual mores have anything to do with what was sexual morality in palaeo times. Different eras and different locations will inevitably have different sexual customs.

As regards links, nummi, true, we are not scientists so cannot fully verify each link, and, ahem, some of us may be somewhat "distracted" at times when reading them, so providing links can be very dodgy,  however, it is better to provide some possibly faulty evidence from other sources than to simply state one's own viewpoint/guess without any real evidence to back it up.

[JeuneKoq]

  Ok, here goes:-  First there is a common ancestor of all primates. Then 2 branches fork off, one of which is the ancestor of common chimpanzees and bonobos, and the other branch leads to humans. Then there is a further branch when the bonobos split off from the common chimpanzees, supposedly because they were genetically isolated from other chimps because of the Congo river. So, from humans to bonobos requires 2 evolutionary branches, but from humans to common chimpanzees requires only one branch.Ergo, humans ought to be genetically closer to common chimpanzees. The further genetic isolation of the Bonobos also confirms my point.

Ok,

1)Refer yourself to the last paragraph I wrote before you posted this.

2)Your logic is flawed*. When the branch splitted to give on one side the chimps and on the other the bonobos, they actually came from a common ancestor that is different from both species.

Take a green bean, symbolizing human's and great ape's common ancestor. This bean splits into two different beans: one yellow (great apes/ ancestral chimps), one blue (humans). Later, this yellow bean splits into two different beans: one red ("modern" chimps), one purple(bonobos). As you can see, neither the red bean nor the purple is closest to the blue bean (humans). *

Anyway, as I've pointed out, this has no true value in determining human's innate/natural social behavior.

note: I mean no disrespect when using examples as simplistic as this one. I just find it illustrates my argument in a more straightforward way.

*correction: Actually I can see how different species could have genetically diverged from a common ancestor at different degrees, perhaps as a result of genetic isolation as you stated, or because of a particular environmental pressure applied on one specie or the other. Therefor chimps could be in theory genetically closer to the common ancestor they share with bonobos, thus relatively closer genetically to humans. Still this is theoretical, and my main point remains valid.

[nummi]

Yeah, according to you, you can stay at home, be an expert on everything, knowing everything by your own powerful mind without having ever been out on the field to check the facts, in this case excavate and examine skeletons and other remains or go and stay for months in remote jungles to observe apes, if I understand you well. You don’t need to rely on the expertise of people involved in research, anthropologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, experts on animal behavior, etc… No, no, you are so much more clever and knowledgeable than all these bunch of idiots scientists and specialists spending their lives on the field to observe and study. LOL.

I finally think JK decision to stop posting is wise, after all. I should rather do the same and proceed with my work instead of wasting energy here in stupid endless-loop discussions with thankless guys who know it all better. 

With this you demonstrated your incapability to comprehend what I said and meant. Exactly doing the opposite of what I tried to explain not to do and why not to do it. Thus proving everything I said, though you can't understand any of this for obvious reasons.
Very evident there's no point explaining anything to you, since you're a "passive fanatic".

The only one keeping such "discussions" going in loop is you. Please try to see this!

[nummi]

And try to also see why you went so angry.
And I'll even give an explanation to this.
You went angry because I touched an issue in your mind, a contradiction in yourself and brought it out in a way you couldn't ignore it. And so you either have to address it, accept it, and then begin correcting it. Or. Considering you are a fanatic, then the default action is defense and attack in return, thus avoiding the issue present in yourself.
Now ask yourself who is a fanatic. And you'll find out why you attacked in response.

[van]

Tyler, look at some of the African ways of farming before the English took over.  The partitioned land between families that worked for centuries.  They had common grazing sectors and the peoples of the village knew what the limits were for each member as to how much he could plant, graze and extend his herd size.  There are just so many examples throughout history where agriculture communities existed peacefully to ignore.  But as mentioned, there have Always been marauding tribes who want to take what is not theirs.  And as I said before, this is not to be confused with those who want to live in peace,, eating their farmed crops and raised herds of animals.  If anything it's overpopulation that significantly contributes to abuse.  Imagine today if everyone had to go out and forage and kill animals to eat and stay alive (and there were no raised herds of animals).   We'd be fighting over wild game and berries in no time, or starve.

[eveheart]

2)Your logic is flawed*. When the branch splitted to give on one side the chimps and on the other the bonobos, they actually came from a common ancestor that is different from both species.

Take a green bean, symbolizing human's and great ape's common ancestor. This bean splits into two different beans: one yellow (great apes/ ancestral chimps), one blue (humans). Later, this yellow bean splits into two different beans: one red ("modern" chimps), one purple(bonobos). As you can see, neither the red bean nor the purple is closest to the blue bean (humans). *

I disagree with your logic.

On the "day" of the "split" and for some time afterwards, both branches are still "yellow/yellow" for quite some time to come. The split signifies and end to interbreeding of each subsequent branch. Subsequent genetic changes are minute, and take time to become established.

[JeuneKoq]

I disagree with your logic.

On the "day" of the "split" and for some time afterwards, both branches are still "yellow/yellow" for quite some time to come. The split signifies and end to interbreeding of each subsequent branch. Subsequent genetic changes are minute, and take time to become established.

I agree with you, however regarding animal classification I'm pretty sure the "split" is generally settled when the two diverging species are no longer capable of interbreeding, which of course happens much later after the two species originally started diverging from their common ancestor.

And this doesn't change the fact that both bonobo and chimp are almost equally different from man genetically speaking, am I not right?

[eveheart]

I agree with you, however regarding animal classification I'm pretty sure the "split" is generally settled when the two diverging species are no longer capable of interbreeding, which of course happens much later after the two species originally started diverging from their common ancestor.

And this doesn't change the fact that both bonobo and chimp are almost equally different from man genetically speaking, am I not right?

What geneticists call diverging refers to minute changes in the chromosome pattern at a regular rate over time. That's why we read about genetic similarities in the high-90 percents, even among different species. Animal classification does concern itself with the possibility of interbreeding, but interjecting that detail into this discussion of fighting styles is going a little more off-topic than my sensibilities will allow.

[sabertooth]

i don't know.  It is kind of silly to want to imitate the cavemen while you're staring at a computer screen.  (Don't mean to sound arrogant, just my humble opinion.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bkRGH4sJDE

[JeuneKoq]

What geneticists call diverging refers to minute changes in the chromosome pattern at a regular rate over time. That's why we read about genetic similarities in the high-90 percents, even among different species. Animal classification does concern itself with the possibility of interbreeding, but interjecting that detail into this discussion of fighting styles is going a little more off-topic than my sensibilities will allow.

Ok, I just wanted to address this particular claim that modern chimps where (much) closer to us than bonobos, and the fact that it didn't matter anyways, regarding human's own natural social behavior. Off topic of course, but the roots of this deviated discussion where on the subject of fighting and aggressiveness amongst men.

[Brad462]

Where is the evidence humans evolved from apes?  We share something like 60% of our dna with cucumbers, but that doesn't mean we evolved from them does it?

[TylerDurden]

Well, I think the genetic isolation factor is somewhat indicative of further more divergent evolution, but I see your point.

[JeuneKoq]

BadBoy, to me a "natural" or "smart" movement/technique is one that is functional, efficient, thoughtful, one that can be performed all throughout a lifetime.

An example of a natural and smart practice: barefoot running.

Unlike jogging the conventional way -that is: hopping at a slow pace, and smashing your foot on the ground heel first, thanks to over-cushioned running shoes-, barefoot running is a practice that anyone can apply all throughout a lifetime, while avoiding being subject to the inevitable leg and back problems most conventional runners do suffer or will later suffer from. Of course barefoot running is intuitive if practiced at a young age, and it is advised to transition slowly from conventional running and get taught the right running approach by a barefoot coach before truly going for it.

Of course a living creature's skill set is not only made up of abilities as intuitive as running. The young tiger must learn from his mother how to hunt for food. The question is: would humans really be taught ways to better fight their kind, instead of skills truly essential to their survival? Perhaps both, and I have a feeling there is also an intuitive part to those teachings. A tiger separated from his mother will still figure out ways to hunt for food in the same way all tigers hunt, but being taught by another makes the integrating process of the skill happen faster and sooner.

Now here is my idea a movement/ability that is NOT smart or natural.

To me, shinbone-kicking fits in the same box as being capable of performing a back-flip: both are counter-intuitive, not essential to the individual's well-being, are potentially dangerous to perform, and cannot be performed throughout a lifetime (this is especially true with back-flipping).

[sabertooth]

In the course of human evolution both Diversion and Miscegenation have influenced human nature. Throughout history the roving hoards of conquerors have interbred with the peaceful valley dwellers, giving rise to a hybridized humanity..

Though with the recent development of the world civilization nanny state the propensity for the individual carrying out un sanctioned acts of physical violence, has been strictly curtailed.

There are people whom without the social protection, I would have physically attacked in retribution for intolerable transgressions. This one individual I know has learned that he can be an antagonistic prick to anyone, says dilatory lies about me, he abuses animals for fun, and Yet because I value my freedom, one is forced to suppress ones own natural inclinations to beat him senseless.

It seems that even when violence is justified, in the age of an over proliferation of idiots with lethal weapons, for the safety of everyone, we must defer from jungle justice to a higher authority.

In today's society those who still have a healthy inclination towards venting aggression would do well to train in the martial arts. Its a healthy way to develop your capacity to defend and destroy while at the same time learning restraint. There is value in knowing you can handle any threat, and stand up to anyone anytime without fear. Simply having confidence in yourself is often enough to deter others from attempting to take advantage of you( either physically or emotionally)

[JeuneKoq]

Why would paleo man be fighting with their arms and legs when they had tools?

When the person's aim was only to assert its social superiority through physical demonstration, for example, without necessarily wanting the rival's death (in a situation where losing a fight was a better outcome than losing a clan member), then it most likely came down to a barehanded fight, that either ended with one of the fighters backing out, or when both decided enough harm was caused.
Of course, if the Paleo man's aim was to kill its rival, it would've been much smarter to use a spear to stab him, or a rock to smash its skull.