“This book should be read by anyone concerned about violence-that is, by everyone.”
-George B. Schaller, author of The Last Panda, The Serengeti Lion, and The Year of the Gorilla “Michael Ghiglieri takes on a topic-male aggression-that many researchers try to avoid, and he takes it on with honesty, with grace, and with a real sense of hope. And it’s a startlingly good read; Ghiglieri is a natural storyteller in addition to being a fine researcher.”
-Deb… More >>
I
This book says that biology is solid science.Really?
Social biology ,ebolutionary biology,evolutionary psychology are very fragile science and have been abused for sexism,racism biological determinism,etc
And if one theory has the ring of the truth,it is possible to assert that that is truth,by using every fragile logic,biased indirect evidence .and the atmosphere(I myself have done so).
And considering such facts ,Scientists have to be humble.
But History repeats itself.
I’m not surprised that his theory sounds plausible to people who don’t know the field well.I myself feel so about guns.
His tactic goes like this
When there are good data,he uses them perfectly and says a is –%,b is –% etc.And he doesnft note what unbiased people usually note.And maybe he doesnft know the field he looked down.
When there are controversial data or theories,he uses the part of data what are convenient for him( if he wants ‘crime is not casused by the poor environment,’he sites only criminal’s son tend to be a criminal ,and ignores the fact that criminal’s son became criminal much less frequently when brought up by normal family.or goes like ‘most authority agree with that’.or something like that.
And when there are obvious unconvinient facts ,data,construals or whatever ,he ignores that ,masks that.and instead uses ,illogical thinkings,personal quotations,and rare cases.and atmosphere.
For example,men kill men for pride and women love such dangerous,with low intelligence,and wanton vilonent guys.And it is an adoptation.according to him.
If men kill men, he earns the reputation that he is violent and he robs the resource easily when in need.And as an evidence he cites Yanomamo tribe’s case or mafia and a woman who was attracted by the mafia.He uses this logic again and again,some rich men also do rape ,so most men…some rich men also do kill ,so most men…Yanomamo tribe and mafia are so,so most men…
But with evolutionary logic anyone can conclude opposite theory.
As he says , ,in evolutionary history,men act in union and if he breaks the harmony,he gets the penalty(this holds true to most societies.).Or maybe gets the revenge.violent?so what ? human got the equalizer(the authority also says eequalizerf put the leader in different position) .Or maybe he was excluded from the community.
And so how about women? according to the social psychology’s experiment,when men are picked a fight by another man,this kind of violent reaction was very unpopular to women.
and if you teachs women that one man is criminal his appearance appeal became lower.And criminal type face was unpopular to women.
And what kind of men ,do women hate most?according to Bass’s reserch all over the world he also quoted,typical killer type men ,violent ,low inteligence and can’t constrain him,is one of the worst types.You’re surprised? but not so surprised if you think well.
And the time that physical power counts much ends before the age of 10 in our world.
So typical killing was not adopted action ,or say worst action .So ?what happened ?human evolves the frontal cortex and among many of the human’s brains high noble abilities (which are all very pppular to women,men,human and as a result are chosen),’brake is included .and no matter men became angry ,normal men don’t kill and in a well contorolled society ,to meet a killer is hundreds times more difficult than many obviously unadopted actions.
And as a whole Killers have problems in frontal cortex and mineral balance.Which indicate they just couldn’t express the abilities they have in themselves and not completely non problem guys as he try to indicate.
And to solve the problem ,we have to fully blossom our noble abilities,not eeye for eyef.
Ob course this is also very biased.
But this is evolutionary biology.I can fabricate another theories if his tactic is allowed.
He said one friend pointed out 1000 places to correct.. But still there were another 1000 to improve.Itfs not an exaggeration.I was tired to read this because of this.
And I reccomend to all the readers that they don’t swallow all the stories written in this book.Though some of them are interesting ,They may be just his personal briefs,or ideologies..What kind of ideology he has ,I donft have to say..
Though I canft say his theories(or maybe any other theories) were definitely wrong.The fact that he has to use assertive ways again and again indicats his were in many cases unlikely.
Rating: 1 / 5
The book is a graphic exploration of violence in humans–especially men–and other primates, with a chapter each devoted to the subjects of rape, murder, warfare, and genocide. Because the book is completely secular, the author does not consider the possibility of original sin as a cause for all of this, but still the book provides ample descriptions of the effects of original sin. I am not an anthropologist, so I cannot comment on the strength or weakness of his anthropological arguments, but his view is clearly that the purpose of life is “to live long enough to procreate before you become food for somebody else” (to quote Calvin and Hobbes). If there is no eternal life as taught by Christianity, then life is indeed as grim and meaningless as he has described; if there is, however, it literally makes all the difference in the world.
Rating: 3 / 5
Reads like a good suspense story, a rare feat in non-fiction. If the causes of violent behavior concern or interest you, this book MUST be read.
Rating: 5 / 5
The author has spent many years studying primate societies. His scientific data is both convincing and chilling. Violence is biological. He is less convincing when he delves into sociology, attempting to relate his primate studies to human society. Especially shocking is his view of American prisons as a sort of ineffective genteel resort so attractive that men will even murder to get (back) into them. Amnesty International considers the American prison system to be among the worst in the world for cruelty and harshness, on a par with those of Turkey and Iran. Our high recidivism rate has nothing to do with the excellence of our prisons, but with their ineffective use of cruelty as punishment, without any interest in rehabilitation, a word which has all but disappeared from “correctional” rhetoric. The author should have read Dr. James Gilligan’s book “Violence.”
Rating: 3 / 5
YOU DON’T HAVE TO AGREE WITH MICHEAL P. GHIGLIERI TO FIND THIS BOOK COMPELLING, FASCINATING READING. PAGE BY PAGE, HE METHODICALLY BUILDS HIS CASE FOR TAKING A NEW LOOK AT THE SOURCE OF VIOLENCE IN OUR WORLD, AND SUGGESTS HOW WE CAN TURN AWAY FROM THE “DARK SIDE”.
Rating: 5 / 5