The discussion today focuses primarily on some alternative explanations for human aggression. (This is the topic that we did not get to on Tues. Nov. 27). We will first consider a socio-biological explanation that holds that aggression is a normal part of animal behavior (including that of humans) but that human aggression differs due to lack of a safeguard that protects animals against aggression from members of their own species. The basic argument is that animals that are dangerous to each other (that have deadly natural "weapons") have safeguards against excessive maiming or killing such as surrender gestures that ward off further aggression or even ritualized combat where they do not really fight. Non-dangerous animals do not need these safeguards and are less likely to have them. According to this ethological view, humans have, via the invention of weapons as a cultural change, become very dangerous without the evolution of safeguards.
The alternative viewpoint is a more human-based one, that argues that humans are dangerous to each other not because our behavior resembles aspects of animal behavior, but mainly because of its uniquely human characteristics. The argument is that through our dependence on symbols and on tight social units, evil leaders can incite aggression through appealing to our loyalty to our "group" whatever that might be (religion, nationality, tribe, etc.) and that our brain physiology is such that aggressive centers can be aroused so that our killing arises out of love of our ingroup rather than originating in hatred of the outgroup, although the effect might be the same.
We finally will turn to a consideration of whether there are parallels between some of the relevant social behaviors of humans and of animals to test whether the sociobiological approach has even face validity.
The slides for todays lecture can be found here.
If there is time we will introduce the topic of personality theory as well toward the end of the lecture.