----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:22 PM Subject: Re: The Savage Solution
> Now I can't see *any* logic for battering behavior for either the man or > the woman to be selected--any more than susceptibility to addictive drugs > is selected. Damaging the mother of your children is not an effective way > to pass on genes. Further, battering women is rare in the hunter gatherer > societies that have been studied. (Others are almost always within earshot > and intervene before damage is done.) That really isn't all that clear. We know that studies of our own culture has drastically underestimated the frequency of battered women and abused children until very recently. Since it is shameful for the person being battered, it is often hidden. We also know that investigations the result of anthropological studies need to be taken with a grain of salt (e.g. coming of age in Samoa). We also know that nomadic societies that can be considered as pre-agricultural often treat women as property. So, I don't think we can draw many conclusions. > So the default assumption is that battering behavior on both sides is a > side effect of other things that were selected. Capture of women in hunter > gatherer societies was probably the gene selection filter. Those that > reoriented toward their captors often became ancestors, those who did not > did not become breakfast.. Perhaps 10% of your ancestors were captives. While this is understandable generalizing, it is not emperically based. Quite a few reasonable sounding things turn out false, once a systematic study is done. > The argument for where the abuser side came from is something I only > recently figured out: > > "If humans respond to capture and abuse by bonding, then the trait to > abuse captives is likely to have also been selected. The argument isn't as > obvious as the survival link with capture-bonding. But it figures that in > a world where 10% of an average tribe's females were captured, those who > had the genes for an "instinct" for the brutal behavior needed to capture > and turn on the capture-bonding trait in the captives left more descendents > than those without it. > Of course, battered wife is an arrested or recirculating (trapped) version > of the capture-bonding sequence. Capture-bonding in the human "wild state" > was a one time event, applied to captives for about the time hazing is today. My understanding from ancient literature is that slaves were taken in battle and everyone knew what the place of slaves was. Indeed, while the Iraquois were not strictly hunter-gatherer (they did farm), they were a society that had slaves. Your description is not consistent with what I've read about their practices. > > > Are there any factors that predict that a woman is more likely to enter a > > relationship with someone who batters her? > > Probably not. Certainly true. One looks at her home environment. If there is abuse in that environment, she is much more likely to enter into an abusive relationsip. You could argue that it's genetic, but there are considerable amounts of data that indicate that this type of behavior is learned...as detailed below. > > Are there any factors that predict whether a woman will leave such a > > relationship? > > Unfortunately no. The ones that I would think would apply if your theory were correct (getting out of the environment and having one's own source of income) have not been found to apply. > It is possible that explaining the evolved psychology of what is going on > to both parties might help in some case. I remember explaining another > psychological mechanism, drug like attention rewards, to an > ex-scientologist. He reported later that understanding (or at least having > a plausible explanation) for what had screwed up his life and that of his > children was a great relief and stopped his nightmares cold. > > Humans *can* invoke higher order rational mental mechanisms to change their > behaviors and sometimes do. It helps if they understand the reason for > "washing hands." (To invoke Dr. Semmelweis.) > > > Is a battered woman more or less likely to be abusive to her children? > > From first pass theory, neither more or less. There is no particular > reason for the psychological mechanisms involved to be conjoined. An abused women is definitely more likely to abuse her children than a woman who has not been abused. The best way that has been seen to reduce the abuse is to teach the woman how to take care of herself. > To the extent considerable extent that the mechanisms are genetic, children > of wife batterers are statistically more likely to be abuse themselves, > even if raised away from their biological parents. Most data suggests that it is mostly environmental. Indeed, my wife knows of no studies that indicate a genetic link. She has not worked in the field for about 10 years, so it is possible that there has been a recent study we don't know about, but its still likely she would have heard. We do have clear, strong indications of environmental effects. For example, people who were abused in day care, foster parents, etc. have a greater likelihood of being abused. A sexual abuser does not have to be a blood relative to affect the behavior of a survivor. etc. Actually, there is a very easy genetic explanation for all this. Its that humans are genetically favored to be adaptive and to learn from their environment. Alas, that has no predictive value for what lessons will be learned. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
