7Polica za knjige

Citati iz knjige „Race, Monogamy, and Other Lies They Told You“ autora Agustín Fuentes

There are not white, black and Asian diseases. However, being white, black or Asian can put you in different social and environmental realities that lead to inequalities in health and disease.
We will never understand violence by looking only at the genes or brains of violent people. Violence is a social and political problem, not just a biological and psychological one
This prevalence of cooperation does not negate aggression or violence and in fact probably enables the kind of intense and extreme violence that is characteristic of modern warfare and civil conflicts. To create and maintain armies you need extremely complex cooperation and to engage in wide-scale warfare, coordination and a near complete suppression of selfish behavior is needed. One might even argue that war is possible directly due to humans' unique abilities to maintain large-scale and intensive cooperation.
is just that the available evidence shows that aggression is neither the primary, nor the most successful, way to achieve dominance and to mate and produce offspring. Although humans and male primates can be aggressive, and humans can be especially violent, there is no indication that this is a consistent or evolved strategy in our species.
This result suggests that there might be differential socialization for males and females (allowing more high aggression in males and dampening the expression of aggression in females), resulting in the different trajectories of retention of patterns of high aggression.47 This is especially interesting given that there does not seem to be a link between physical aggression and the testosterone spike in males at puberty, which might have been an explanation for the maintenance of increased high aggression into adulthood by males.
For anthropologists, the major distinction between sex and gender is one of societal context. Sex refers to the biological differences between men and women and gender refers to the overall differences in perception and actions. Just as we are enculturated into the society in which we grow up, we are also engendered (literally “to become a gender”).
So, while peaceful interaction is a lot more common than war, and more widespread at any given moment, war results in a more immediate and dramatic outcome than peace—death. Warfare is a part of modern humanity and it impacts lives, so the evolutionary history of warfare is important and might be able to give us insight into human aggression.
While it is true that in some species (like chimpanzees, orangutans, and some baboons) males do seem to use aggression to coerce females to stay near them, or even to mate with them, there are also many other species (gibbons, many macaques, marmosets and tamarins, and Asian leaf monkeys) where males are not able to use aggression to coerce females at all. In fact in many species females can group together to form coalitions with which to resist male attempts at coercion or aggression.
That is, just over a third of children in two studies (in the United States and Finland) who demonstrated high aggressive behavior levels at around eight years of age also displayed these levels as adults. Interestingly, the same is true for those children who displayed very low levels of aggression. Not surprisingly another strong correlation with childhood and adult aggression was the aggressiveness of the adults parenting the children. This pattern, where context, learning, and childhood experience and environments are related to the adult expression of aggression, is characteristic of many cultures around the planet
Violence and aggression attract our attention more than nonaggressive or nonviolent interactions. They get more attention culturally and when they do occur they can have serious physical and health impacts. This can sometimes lead us to think that aggression and violence are more important (or at least impactful) than everything else we do, and thus must reflect a specific part of human nature.
There are wars in the Middle East and Africa, terrorism across the globe, and violent crime in the United States. Why would this be the case unless humans are by nature an aggressive species? It also seems that men are more aggressive than women. Most murderers are male, most rapists are male, and most people in prisons are male. Why would this be the case unless men were naturally more violent than women? It has to be true that at our core we indeed evolved into aggressive, big-brained apes (or at least men did). If it were not for laws, rules, and the constraints of society the law of the jungle—nature red in tooth and claw—would rule the day. Right? Wrong.
So, while intraspecific violence occurs, most species do not exhibit extreme aggression regularly and methodically. Humans are the only species that practice premeditated homicide and full-out war. That humans can, and do, participate in aggression and violence in ways that most other animals do not (and cannot) has led many to theorize that this aggression, this inner beast or demon, our Mr. Hyde, is part of human evolutionary heritage.
While we can see real differences in sports participation, disease patterns, and socioeconomic status between the races in the United States, these differences are not due to biological or unique racial characteristics. They arise from individual variation, and social, historical, and economic patterns and contexts that characterize our society
The concept that there can be too much knowledge is ridiculous in this context; we need to have access to as much information as possible to be able to make up our own minds. We can never know everything, nor even nearly as much as we might like. However, we should all have access to the information and the basic skills with which to assemble and critically assess the information
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
—Albert Einstein (physicist
The fallacy behind the myth of aggression is that nature and nurture are different, and that our animal (or evolutionary) core is that of a primitive beast. If this were true, then our nurture (cultural constraints) would manage an inner nature (a primitive, aggressive drive especially in men) that emerges whenever the grasp of civilization weakens. If we believe this then we will accept a wide range of interpersonal violence as inevitable, and we will see war, rape, and murder as just part of the nature of human beings
The point is that we have to exert extreme caution when arguing that something is “natural,” or the way it should be. Assuming something is natural does not necessarily mean it is “fit” or “correct.” Nor does it necessarily mean that social and historical contexts did not have a hand in shaping it.
It is one of our society's cultural constructs to assign a certain intrinsic value to things we deem natural (coming from outside of human control) as opposed to things we see as being altered by human society and customs
This misconception of perfect coevolution is critical because it leads to the assumption that if something is a certain way, and it is the product of evolution, then it came to be that way for a purpose.
This means that social and historical contexts give rise to particular ideas about reality that are firmly shared in a culture and interpreted as being true about the world, but are not necessarily biologically or historically accurate.
Prevucite i otpustite datoteke (ne više od 5 odjednom)