NowhereWoman wrote:
I don't see weeding out the physically weakest as a plus when it comes to a species that relies on intellect and forethought. That doesn't make much sense.
And that’s not what I said. Bullying weeds out those who aren’t good enough at not becoming the targets of someone capable of destroying them, whatever skills and natural assets this happens to require. There’s no question intelligence helps, but it’s not enough. Especially being street-smart helps. A decent size, sturdy bones and powerful muscles do, too.
NowhereWoman wrote:
If that had worked well for our species over the past 2.5 million years (and most specifically, within the past 35,000 years), we wouldn't be communicating on computers right now, we'd be hulking around waiting to scoop up the abandoned remnants of someone else's kill before curling up in a protected hole for the night.
That’s basically what we did for most of our existence, by far, except you can’t really live on “someone else’s kill”. We’re descended from herbivores and most of our diet came from gathering, not hunting, and, when we hunted, we had to make our own kills most of the time, because there are no kills if everyone is waiting to steal one from someone else. We developed our human brains because they enabled us to do all that better, but only as long as the rest of our body remained fit enough.
Mens sana in corpore sano. A modern nerd would have no place there and wouldn’t last long.
NowhereWoman wrote:
Because the nerdy smart ones would have all been bullied either literally to death
You can bet they were. If not, we’d be, on average, more nerdy and less capable of fighting. But there’s no basis to assume, like you’re implying, that nerdy types are inherently smarter than the better-built ones. The only thing preventing us from becoming arbitrarily brainy and brawny is the energy cost. Unbalanced or otherwise inefficient designs are weeded out. Ironically, technological progress has increased enormously the amount of food well-off people can eat if necessary, so this means modern humans can afford to have
both more powerful brains and muscles than our remote ancestors did.
NowhereWoman wrote:
or, at the very least, out of the group to fend for themselves,
… where they’d perish sooner rather than later. One of the shortcomings of relying on intelligence to make up for a lack of brute force is that it requires time to be any use. When there’s a tiger jumping to have you for dinner, or an angry gorilla about to tear your head off, you don’t have the time to discover metals and gunpowder, make a rifle and shoot them.
NowhereWoman wrote:
and the physically hulking ones who could toss others around would have dominated and their genetics would have predominantly been what were passed along. But obviously that isn't what happened. Obviously, evolution selected (I get that evolution can't technically think or select, but you get the idea) for intellect and forethought more so than individual physical strength in our species - considering the fact that as compared to some other animals, we really aren't very individually physically strong/survival-selected from a physical/pushing/"bullying"/forcing perspective.
Evolution, by definition, selected the right balance of everything. And this right balance changed over time.
NowhereWoman wrote:
Indeed, history would appear to show that the ones who couldn't physically dominate were the ones who had to rely more on wiles and intellect, or at least those who could survive on wiles and intellect survived longer/better overall v. hulking physical bullies as evidenced by the fact that overall, humans aren't very physically amazing as compared to much of the animal world. When we need to be physically strong for survival, we tend to do so in groups and always have, because physically we're really not amazing specimens at all. Our hearing is pretty bad, our sense of smell is pathetic as compared to many animals, our nails are weak and breakable and don't do us a lot of good (v. claws), we don't have tearing, attacking, self-protecting canine teeth, we don't have enough fur to keep warm in very cold conditions and so on.
We adapted to being tool users. Our nails—and teeth—regressed because we fought better with knives, axes and spears. Note our hands did not regress, being our most versatile appendages for using tools; large claws would get in the way. We’re also good at throwing things. Another crucial part of our survival strategies, as you pointed out, is being social. Socially impaired individuals certainly had no chance till quite recently—they were just a burden the group couldn’t put up with, so our complex brains incorporated in their “firmware” all manner of tricks to get rid of them while still retaining what was important to keep the tribe together. We developed a tendency to have moral views which helped the group work and keep only desirable individuals in it. Groups which ended up being weak, for whatever reason, where vanquished by their stronger rivals. All we have now, from genes to culture, is what the victors of all the past battles imposed when they obliterated the losers.
NowhereWoman wrote:
In fact, though "might" is admired, so too is capability in areas that don't include physical might and it was indeed the latter that have brought us to computers, cars, preserved food rather than starvation and all the thousands of little pieces of technology you and I use every single day. A natural overriding proclivity for harming, as you say, and eliminating the physically weaker would never have allowed for that. Indeed, though the "mighty" have always been admired and considered heroes, when they abused that power they were often ejected from the group (or were demoted from power, or forced out of power by a group, etc.) - not the weaker ones they were bullying. Why? Because from a survival standpoint, our particular makeup is such that we need our diversity in order to carry on. Therefore it was the bullies (and tyrants and all manners of description of "bully") who were, and are, anti-survival when it comes to human beings and human groups.
The bullies who were defeated were those who chose the wrong targets, or too many. Only those who can afford to do their bullying succeed at it, like everyone else.
Don’t forget each one’s place. Admired or not, capability in something that doesn’t involve physically dominating someone means you may be useful, or even necessary, to the group, but doesn’t grant you power. If the leader of a tribe of barbarians decides he can use your skills, he won’t hire you or buy anything from you when he can just steal anything he wants by force, or keep you as a slave. Morals won’t stop him, because you’re not part of his group. It is natural for us, as was shown throughout history, to regard outsiders as less than human and generally fair game. It is force that makes him respect you. Those who can’t defend themselves on their own are always at someone else’s mercy.
NowhereWoman wrote:
Disposing of the actually literally incapable of surviving was a tradition among many groups for many centuries - say, the very ill, or those with what were considered birth defects - as it was assumed those wouldn't survive anyway and hence would be drain on the group. (No longer true today with medical advances, more food and resources, etc.) But that wasn't based on being disgusted by just a basic physical weakness yet overall good health. That literally was based on survival: Infant X was born without legs, Infant X will never be able to forge for himself or help the group forage, Infant X will need to be carried when running away which will slow down the entire group, hence the entire group could potentially die, etc. Again, thank goodness we don't (at least in first world nations) feel the need to take these measures today. But perhaps a personality that wishes to bully is the "birth defect" version of this biological inclination/decision making process, who knows.
Bullying typically happens after infancy and among peers. It’s a basic impulse to test one’s peers. If they yield, they’re unworthy, weak links in a chain, which is as strong as its weakest link. Groups which didn’t have this drive developed enough accepted more weak members than rival groups and eventually were destroyed by them. As always, there’s a balance. If the leader of a group bullied to the point that he ended up alone, he was screwed, too.
NowhereWoman wrote:
One more thing that I believe is worthy of note: if bullying were naturally selected for and pro-survival, we should be seeing a majority who are natural bullies. But we don't. (Thank goodness.) Take for example a grade of children, four classes, ~25 kids per classroom, so we'll say 100 kids. Out of those 100 kids, as many as four or five might be the "class bullies" and travel around as a "pack" looking to terrorize the "weak." Four or five out of 100 certainly would not seem to be a natural biological selection in favor of survival.
If bullying had been consistently selected
against, it’d have essentially disappeared altogether. It’s hard to tell what being a “natural bully” means. If my scant experience means anything, in any group the size you mention, there are usually a few active bullies, who take the initiative, and a significantly larger number of followers, who join in once someone is already being picked on. The rest are mostly passive and uncomfortable if forced to take part. Few are likely to take the victim’s side, and there’d probably be even fewer of them if an authority, like parents or the school, didn’t encourage it. This suggests many would become initiators if the existing ones were to leave. I for one observed that whether someone started bullying me or not was far from a binary—more like it was triggered when my insultingly naïve and clueless behavior crossed some threshold, which probably made them think I deserved to be beaten up. Each peer had their own particular threshold, and they all had in common a basic ability and willingness to fight, with no moral qualms once they felt the aggression justified. I was never able to fight effectively, nor did I count on it, and stupidly held on to the belief that fighting was always wrong, as if thinking the way others behave is wrong somehow harmed them.
NowhereWoman wrote:
Although it may theoretically apply to some species (not sure but it's a possibility), I don't see your theory as valid when it comes to humans.
I greatly doubt I’m the first one to theorize this.
_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.
16 Oct 2015, 11:38 pm
