Trying to prove for a psychology class debate on Tuesday that humans are not naturally violent. I will post some of the material I have so far but would love your insight on why they are not or anything I can research to help my claim. I will be standing up with two other individuals conveying this then there will be another group that comes up and tries to prove that we are naturally violent.
Then the class interjects. Any ideas or strong points to prove my defense?

According to the U.S. Justice Department - The number of violent crimes per 100,000 people in the United States has dropped considerably--and fairly consistently--since 1990,. The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines violent crime as murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The rate of those crimes was 730 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1990; in 2009 it actually went down to 429. That means that 99,571 people out of that 100,000 did not commit violent crimes.
To put that in perspective, as a whole, in the United States population in 2009 was approximately 305,529,237 using that same equation it comes out to only .429 percent of people in the United States committed violent crimes in 2009. That isn’t even a half of ONE percent of the people!

Aggression and violence while frequently used in the same context are two very different things. Aggression is an action with the intent to create harm; however, violence refers to an action with extreme harm as the main goal of the action (Anderson and Bushman).

If our opposing side claims that it’s in our genes. By itself gene/testosterone doesn't cause violence, but true it can be part of the recipe. Environments trigger gene activity. Nature interacts with nurture, and although there have been many studies done, the gene for aggression HAS NOT been found according to geneticists. Yes, Testosterone in humans was considered the cause of aggression and violence for many years; however, recent studies have shown that testosterone can only be blamed for a small portion of human aggression. While studies do show that in adults and post-pubescent male’s testosterone does play a role in aggression, it does not explain the aggression that can surface in prepubescent children Citation is-(Constantino et al.; Hudziak et al.). Testosterone can be linked with violence; however, the amount of testosterone in ones bloodstream can be influenced by feelings and emotions. Studies done with prison inmates concur that violence and testosterone have a link, yet in non-incarcerated groups no real link is found (Zitzmann and Nieschlag, 185). Testosterone has also been shown to only cause or affect the intramale form of aggression such as competition and the resident’s response in an intruder-resident conflict, but it does not explain the intruder’s aggression or other forms predatory aggression (Simpson, 33).
(Zitzmann and Nieschlag, 183). Simpson continues this line of thinking saying that although testosterone is part of aggression it does not cause the aggression; there must be some outside influence to cause an aggressive response!

I don't believe that humans are naturally violent. If anyone says that humans are naturally violent I will grab whatever heavy implement is at hand and severely beat them about the head. I would be happy to assist you during your presentation to the class. I will beat the hell out of anyone who disagrees with you.

According to our book and (chapter 10) it is stated that most psychologists view human behavior as directed by physiological needs and psychological wants. When we look at percentages later in this discussion you will see that-Violence is extremely low on the scale of what psychological needs we as humans resort to as a whole. In saying that- It doesn’t mean that we are naturally violent. In fact- If we always got our needs met positively from birth, our needs are not looking to become violent.

Uhhhhhhh, how long have humans been involved in wars ....?

Thanks for the comedy relief Paul, between school, work and other things I needed that and may just take you up on your offer if things don't go well...ha!

KLC thanks for the input, I appreciate it.

I know this one might be an uphill battle. I am trying to prove that we are not naturally violent not that we are.

According to Dr. Christopher Ryan -congruent with our evolved predisposition we have learned that it is much easier to walk away instead of fighting. What do you think is the hardest thing to get solders to do in war? Answer- How to get solders to kill and die. Most people’s natural reaction when being shot at is to run and hide.
Do you think Metalwing that war stems from some psychological need or do you think we are naturally predisposed to war?

....ha! This is all good feedback and has me contemplating new facets.

Part of being human is to be unique. To prove something about human nature would be more of an exercise in statistics than logic. Some are violent, some are not.

During WWII the Japanese were taught that Americans were soft and would, indeed, run away when attacked. What actually happened was the Americans fought bravely to defend their country after a sneak attack. Few ran away. Many held their positions against massed Japanese attacks on the Pacific islands and ultimately won victory.

You might want to study the American Indian tradition of "counting Coup". It is an interesting combination of warfare, bravery, and sportsmanship.

Consider this, much of modern man's resistance to violence is from lifelong programing, yet it still occurs. Were we to instantly be transported to prehistoric times, much of our modern niceness may disappear.

I think the violent nature of man would be easier to prove than disprove.

Isn't "civilization" really just an attempt to overcome the animal/violent instincts with something more logical, more rational, more -- for lack of a better term -- "civilized"? And the results have been sobering, at best -- and tragic at the other extreme.

There may be a time when humans are no longer naturally violent. I think that day is a very long way away.

Don't you have to be programmed to be civilized, how can we naturally be civilized?

Considering that we are animals that have evolved and still are I would have to say yes. Just look at less civilized cultures around the world and how humans are treated: China, Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, Vietnam, N. Korea, the Congo republic, Haiti and so on.

Go back the basis of the homosapien and the caveman days, they were animals wih basic instincts as any other animal. They fought over, food, mating and territory as any other animal. How has territorial bahaviours changed and have they? Does the male species still quarrel over mating and their mate? How would they react if they hadn't had food, then suddenly a minimal amount of food were thrown before them? Have homosapiens resorted to cannibalism in certain circumstances?

Control is always a part of violence. If there is something you want and don't want anyone else to have the best way to secure it for yourself is to kill and beat people so they no longer want it. This is a subject that IMO cannot be completed in 3 weeks or even a semester and in doing this, one needs to sit with anthropologists among other experts in human behavior and do a lot of research. I would like ti see what his conclusion is when he is done with this project.

Speaking of programming, that is something I can see. And just like that I lost my train of thought LOL

Look at psychology
Humans will always be warring.

Thank you gentlemen. I was thinking while we were making our presentation that, playing in the background, there will be (as a power-point presentation) images of uplifting worldly human events(pathos) and many leaders that, for the most part, promoted peace- Gandhi, Mother Theresa and so on.

Just a thought I brought up in our team and they seemed to like it... We also kidded around and said we might play 'We are the world' at the end. -This will give me a chance to grab my sun glasses and do my Stevie Wonder impression. ..lol

Thanks for the heads up, I will be sure to do research on the images playing in the background. Mother Teresa- do you think they will lead into a religious debate and the violence that stems from Holy wars?
Just curious as to why she should be deleted?




We might just stick with anything that strikes a positive emotional response to set the tone. Smiles, people holding hands and interacting. Maybe set to the Beatles or some other band?