Hello Editors and Contributors of WIKIPEDIA,
I started this new page, about "Social Defeat", which can be considered a new approach to phenomena of within-species aggression, in both humans and animals, like hierarchy formation in animals, bullying and relational aggression in humans, with many consequences for understanding behaviour, brain phenomena, and even some pathologies.
This new approach to aggression overlaps with many others, from social psychology for example, but it is perhaps even more adequate to scientific investigation, because it can be tested and verified, in experiments with animals and observations with humans. So I expect you to be patient with this new "stub".
Please help me improve it, it is a worthy new way of analysing aggression.
Thank you all,
You who helped me writing this stub, Thank you, But i would like to know who are you. Please, who are you ?
Alberto, from Brazil
- Who are you talking to? Contributors to pages can be seen by clicking on the history tab at the top of each page. Please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) and if you are [[User::Alcor2010]] (talk page) please sign in otherwise you are skirting wikipedia's rules on sockpuppetting and making it harder to get messages to you. WLU 15:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations and Notes
Congratulations on the rare well-researched, well-presented and non-agenda-driven entry on this extremely fascinating topic. Researchers interested in this subject will probably also be interested in Social Darwinism (Ragnar Redbeard, Demonic Males, etc.), the relationship between earthly aristocracy and a claimed monopoly on force (as highlighted by Richard W. Kaeuper in Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe), and psychopathy as viewed through evolutionary psychology--according to Iran Pitchford of The Human Nature Review, "it makes sense--in terms of evolutionary drives--for socially disadvantaged males to employ deception, manipulation and even violence to obtain resources and access to reproductive opportunities" (William Hart, Evil: A Primer, p. 85). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
- Yes this article provides excellent information and links, incl. potentially very relevant re. 'mental disorders'. I noticed that the citations needed template was added apparently re. need for inline citations which now seem to have been added, so I'm going to remove that template. Though perhaps some counterpoints are needed to cover alternative notable views or cautions on this evolutionary psychology topic. As regards to the above notes, I'll just stick here a quote from an article on the ev psy of aggression and violence (not social defeat per se) that I was just reading:
"The recent reluctance of social science to embrace genetic and evolutionary explanations may be related to several phenomena. The first may be related to historical abuses of genetic explanations of human behavior to promote racism, sexism, eugenics, and the belief in racial differences in intelligence ...... Second, misunderstandings about evolutionary theory, evolutionary psychology, and behavioral genetics may increase resistance. Two common misconceptions include the “naturalistic fallacy” and biological hard determinism. The naturalistic fallacy is the belief (or fear) that if something is caused by biology, this provides moral justification for the behavior. In other words, “natural” behavior is equated with “morally desirable” behavior. Similarly biological hard determinism implies that human behavior is due only to genetic or other biological effects, and is not influenced by the environment, nor open to the effects of agency. However, evolutionary psychologists have indicated clearly that they do not endorse either the naturalistic fallacy or biological hard determinism (see Wilson, Dietrich, & Clark, 2003 for a discussion)." EverSince (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)