Does human aggression require an outlet?
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
No.
I also disagree with the love assumption.
To answer the question posed as the title of this thread: "Does Human aggression require an outlet?" my answer is an unequivocal, "Yes." Aggression should not be allowed to fester, it requires action or channeling to resolve, or else damage (physical or mental) to the organism may result.
To instead answer the different question posed in the OP: "Is aggression a feeling, like love, that must be satisfied in some way to feel 'complete' as a homo sapiens?" my answer is just as unequivocally, "No."
Aggression is not like vitamins, nor exercise. It is not a required part of the Human experience. In my opinion, stress (and external stressors in general) are required in order for any and all of Humanity to fully flower and grow, however aggression is but one of many responses to stress. It is a completely valid and acceptable response, mind you, but it is not the only response, nor does it seem to me that there would be definitive times when aggression would be the one-and-only valid and acceptable response, which is why I answer the second question with, "No."
--Patrick
To instead answer the different question posed in the OP: "Is aggression a feeling, like love, that must be satisfied in some way to feel 'complete' as a homo sapiens?" my answer is just as unequivocally, "No."
Aggression is not like vitamins, nor exercise. It is not a required part of the Human experience. In my opinion, stress (and external stressors in general) are required in order for any and all of Humanity to fully flower and grow, however aggression is but one of many responses to stress. It is a completely valid and acceptable response, mind you, but it is not the only response, nor does it seem to me that there would be definitive times when aggression would be the one-and-only valid and acceptable response, which is why I answer the second question with, "No."
--Patrick
Arm chair psychologists. Sheesh. These questions are testable, by the way. Oh, and look, they have been tested!
You guys shouldn't argue with MindDetective on this, I mean, DETECTING MINDS IS WHAT HE DOES.
Google is your friend! Google Scholar is your nerdy, know-it-all friend.
Things that we still don't know everything about, there will ALWAYS be more of those.
Opinions rather than facts, one would presume.
Life experience is mine.
Because anecdotal evidence always trumps scientific proof.
We know jack shit all about how the mind works.
Well maybe scientific proof needs to work on her poker face, and consider bluffing once in awhile, then she might stand a chance.
It does when it's happened to you and is directly against the scientific evidence. It might not be the same for everyone, but for the person that it happened to, it's fact vs opinion.[DOUBLEPOST=1357675444][/DOUBLEPOST]Disagree with what exactly Calleja?
Perception is not fact. Your perception can be altered by an incredibly numerous and varied amount of things, including shit like hormones and mood. Not to mention chemicals.
Plus, human memory is like the most unreliable thing humans have. And that includes erections after lots of whiskey.
Plus, human memory is like the most unreliable thing humans have. And that includes erections after lots of whiskey.
I would posit that you couldn't articulate accurately what has happened to you, nor are you likely aware of all of the underlying, implicit (that is, unconscious) processes involved. This is why introspection has failed as a reliable investigative technique. It also underscores why a single data point is almost always insufficient for drawing strong conclusions about anything.
Perception of REALITY dude. I'm sorry to tell you, but every single thing you see, hear and experience goes through an incredible amount of biological, cultural and neurological filters. This is why we create standards. What you perceive is not truth. The closest we can get to the truth is by studying what everyone perceives and see what's the most overlapping perception.
Correct. As is a single or even multiple studies when put against someone's actual experience.
Standards also do not apply to everyone or shall we bring up studies from the 1900-1950s and compare them to today's -standards-?
This is patently untrue. Your memory and perception are inherently flawed, and thus will never trump systematic investigation.
No. That's why I said "closest" and "overlap".
And I'm sorry, but if you think what you experience is THE TRUTH, you're incredibly narcissistic. You may argue about your OWN truth, but then you open yourself up to a whole new range of counterarguments. Psychopaths have their own truths, too.
And I'm sorry, but if you think what you experience is THE TRUTH, you're incredibly narcissistic. You may argue about your OWN truth, but then you open yourself up to a whole new range of counterarguments. Psychopaths have their own truths, too.
It does require a letter of excuse from time to time, yes (ball lightning, people who survive skydiving accidents, school behavior, Greek fire, the Tunguska fireball, etc).
--Patrick
For any of those to actually challenge scientific lnowledge, there HAS to be evidence beside the anecdote, and that's the truth for every example. We didn't just believe a guy survived a skydiving accident, we SAW the footage and the results. There's a difference.
BananaHands
Staff member
'dem disagrees.
To put a finer point on it (without knowing any details of your experience): I surmise that you didn't develop an outlet for aggression but learned contrary behaviors to unhealthy aggressive behaviors. These are very different things, mind you. In the one case, you are satisfying some kind of aggressive urge that is going to be released no matter what. In the other, you are replacing one behavior with another behavior, which then restricts your ability to even engage in unhealthy behavior. The discrepancy here is not that you have changed at all, but in your interpretation of the underlaying processes involved.
Wow, I've never seen more disagrees in such a short span.
Let me further articulate my short post that didn't really answer the question and tell you that I'm very jaded when it comes to problems of the mind due to family experience.
After seeing first hand the effects of personality disorders and mind breakdowns on family members with doctors left scratching their heads as to what's going on... we know very VERY little about how the mind works.
**edit... I'm probably seriously off topic too so you know... take that with a grain of salt**
Let me further articulate my short post that didn't really answer the question and tell you that I'm very jaded when it comes to problems of the mind due to family experience.
After seeing first hand the effects of personality disorders and mind breakdowns on family members with doctors left scratching their heads as to what's going on... we know very VERY little about how the mind works.
**edit... I'm probably seriously off topic too so you know... take that with a grain of salt**
We know a minimal percentage of what there is to know, yeah, but I would still say it's unfair to say we know "jack shit".
The problem is that we know very, very VERY little about the mind of an INDIVIDUAL, cause, see, brains aren't like hearts or lungs. What is true of one is not of the other, the mere WIRING of it changes it dramatically and drastically. There are identical twins with the exact same genetic code where one is autistic and the other is completely normal. The only difference would then be their brain wiring, which does NOT seem to be genetic. At least not completely. This is why @Gilgamesh's arguments about his perception being THE TRUTH to the extent of questioning studies with large samples is laughable.
This is true and I apologize for my knee-jerk use of hyperbole. I'm just sad about what has happened to the minds of a few family members in the past few years and that there really isn't anything we can do about it... at all.
I also agree with your comment about knowing the mind of an individual. Hell, my mom doesn't respond to any drugs the way she is supposed to and can't be clearly diagnosed as she has elements from all kinds of different disorders.
YOUR aggression needs an outlet. Notice the key difference. Your touting what worked for YOU as TRUTH. That's literally like saying Reggaeton is the best thing humankind has made and insisting it's a FACT because YOU believe it.
- Status