Why Do We Have Aggression?
Why is it that some people find the need to lash out and others do not? Could we be born with it? Or do we learn it? Lorenz and Zimbardo, two highly qualified researchers when it comes to behavior, take a deeper look into the idea of aggression. Lorenz takes a positive standpoint on aggression saying it is a constructive and necessary whereas Zimbardo says that aggression appears in particular situations. As this essay unveils I will explain to you in depth the ideas behind both of these arguments, how they relate to the subject of aggression and ultimately, what they tell us about it.
Lorenz uses his knowledge of animal behavior in order to pin point specific idea about aggression. He comes to the conclusion that in most animal species, aggression is not used in spite of other creatures, but is mainly for the means to survival and territorial protection. Lorenz explains when referencing to species, “every one of the fighters gains an obvious advantage by it’s behavior” (Lorenz,1966, Pg. 26). By saying this he is referring to the idea that species would not participate in aggressive actions if there were no results. Aggression specifically in the wild does not come from anything that is not triggered by a motivation; every act of aggression is directed to an advantage. Lorenz has suggested, “the aggression drive has become derailed under conditions of civilization” (Lorenz,1966, Pg. 27). By saying that he is trying to tell us that he likes to focus on the true causes and existence of aggression and uses the idea of species in habitats to prove it. He explains that among mammals “it is not surprising that marking your territory by scent plays a big role in aggression” (Lorenz,1966, pg. 31). When th...
... middle of paper ...
...ect but the way in which they explain the creation of it is vastly different and they do not correlate. To say they were similar would almost be unfair because each person holds an argument that is true to their means of study. If they were both in the same field, their outcomes may be different, but as it stands their arguments do not correlate with each other and hold their own importance in their own fields of study
As presented in this essay we are able to see two very enthralling arguments towards the subject of aggression. Lorenz shares with us the aspect of animal behavior and how it is necessary for their survival and gives them vital benefits. Zimbardo tells us that aggression is something that is developed situationally and use it accordingly in those scenarios. Each of these arguments gives us insight into cracking the idea of the true means of aggression.
The two were alike in many aspects as described above, but had some dissimilarity as well which are summed up as:
Every natural instinct of survival, for both animals and humans, is evil. According to the paradigm of our society, it is immoral to be selfish, to steal, to feel empathy only for your kin and apathy for everyone else, and to kill for personal gain. On the contrary, according to the natural instincts followed by all of the animal kingdom, you are to insure your own and your pack’s own survival, no matter the cost, disregarding all others; to steal, to feel apathy for other groups, and to kill for power and personal gain are all common practices that animals do in nature without the bat of an eye. These instincts do not only apply to lesser animals, but humans share them as well, for we are animals like all the others. There are no morals
Elizabeth Cashdan addresses the question of territoriality among human forager groups, specifically comparing four Bushman groups. She argues that territoriality should occur only in places where the benefits will outweigh the costs. Introducing the scientific definition of territoriality in animals, she first claims that animals tend to be the most territorial when they have adequate food and other resources. It is when there is a severe lack of or abundance of resources that animals are not territorial. With a lack of food, territoriality tends to waste too much energy. In the case of an abundance of food, it is not worth defending that which is plentiful for animals. She points out predictability as another environmental factor: if a resource is unpredictable, then it is not economical to defend it. It is only worthwhile to defend a territory if there is high probability that the resources will still be available when they are wanted. However, the costs and benefits of being territorial not only depend on the environment, but also on the species and its characteristics.
1. Deag, J. M. (1996). "Behavioural ecology and the welfare of extensively farmed animals." Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49(1): 9-22.
Singer’s argument that our society is speciesist hinges on his observation that “most human beings… [would] cause pain to animals when they would not cause a similar pain to humans for the same reason” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 17). His hypothesis is that “the overwhelming majority of humans” take varyingly active and passive roles in championing activities that cause irreparable harm to other species in the name of the “most trivial interests of our own species” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 9). The examples he provides to substantiate this theory range from accounts o...
Ginsberg, Susan. "Cats, Claws, and Conflict." Animals 126.4 (1993): 26. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 9 Dec. 2013.
It is hard to imagine an animal you have raised and taken care of turning on you and suddenly attacking you. You and this animal have lived and interacted peacefully for a long time and have a unique unshakable bond. But do you really? I am ready to argue whether or not animals and humans actually have such a bond, or if animals just understand we provide their food.
By definition aggression can mean a wide range of behaviors that occur for a large number of reasons under many different circumstances. Just about all wild animals are aggressive when guarding their territories, protecting their offspring and themselves.
The problem is to understand why certain individuals turn to killing others as opposed to turning to a positive release such as playing sports. Boxing, football, basketball, soccer, and wrestling are just a few of the many positive releases for this unexpressed aggression. Perhaps it would be beneficial for teachers, coaches, and parents to pay more attention to the children in their charge, and if these children show signs of aggression, persuade them to participate in the positive release of the aggression.
The author concludes by stating that it is “time to reestablish balance in the natural world—by accepting the idea that hunting is as natural as bird-watching.” Kristof relates a passive act to an act of aggression. While it is possible that both can bring a sense of pleasure to participant, the assumption that one person would get the same levels of enjoyment from both is hard to believe, especially considering that both actions are at the far extremes of the same spectrum.
different thing. THey compare in only one way. This is the fact that they both
Starting off his oration, he explained that other primates are capable of manifesting aggression on a level that is similar to humans. Specifically, he noted
One of the most researched topics in the history of psychology is aggression. One goal of social scientists has been to define aggression. Some believe that aggression is biologically preprogrammed, others look toward situational factors and this study suggests that aggression is learned. This study was conducted by Albert Bandura and his associates in 1961 at Stanford University. The researchers proposed that the children be exposed to adult models with either aggressive or nonaggressive ways, they would then be tested without the models present to determine if they would imitate that aggression they observed in the adult.
The field of psychology has opened different hypothesis from a variety of theories with the aim of studying the behaviour of humans being as a result they concluded with five psychological perspectives. Behaviourist, Biological, Psychodynamic, Cognitive and Humanistic perspectives are the deduction after a depth study of mental activity associate to human behaviour. In this essay I will be comparing two psychological perspectives according to aggressive behaviour.
Although the chapter is occasionally hard to follow, Haraway successfully demonstrates an empathetic response to animals suffering due the actions of humans subjecting them to research. She uses arguments to support her views that animals should be regarded as co-workers rather than objects that simply react and are dispensable. She looks at the different perspectives of the act of killing between animals and humans, and states “The problem is actually to understand that human beings do not get a pass on the necessity of killing significant others, who are them-selves responding, not just reacting” (Haraway 2007, 80). This view is unique in comparison to what society commonly believes, so reading this chapter was both enlightening and interesting. Despite the interesting ideas and arguments that Haraway communicates, the chapter often has run on sentences and unnecessarily lengthy words, such as ‘multiplicitous’ (Haraway 2007, 80). This often made the chapter hard to read and therefor difficult to digest. This can, however, be seen as a fault of my own. My final thoughts on chapter 3 of ‘When Species Meet’ is that the extensive research that Haraway underwent proved effective when supporting her argument and, in turn, created a thought compelling and respectable piece of