Welcome to Gaia! ::

Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Violence is caused by a number of factors.

Clearly, being born is a factor or else violence could not exist at all, but there are many, many things.
Karuzo Zweihander's avatar

1,300 Points
  • Member 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Statustician 100
Violence is innate in our psych since the prehistoric times....

maybe as a form of self-defense or maybe form of our aggression towards something we dislike or some thing that is morally and ethically right
AliKat1988's avatar

Mewling Consumer

15,100 Points
  • Alchemy Level 3 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Hive Mind 200
Pseudo-Onkelos
CH1YO
Pseudo-Onkelos
Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau.


Buhler, Freud, Bandura.


I only know of Freud.
Buhler has not been discussed much in the classes I have, but Bandura is a big deal and though not contradicting to Freud, greatly contrasts him in terms of prompts for violent behavior. The bobo doll experiment is probably what Bandura is best known for the bobo doll experiment as an illustration of observational learning for violent behavior. He showed how violence can be learned. I would discuss some of the recent theories I have heard about to explain violent behavior, but I doubt many people care too look at such jargon filled stuff here. If not for the use it has in other aspects of brain/psychosocial functioning, I cannot find the recent neuroscience stuff too interesting.
Yoshpet's avatar

Dedicated Loiterer

3,750 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Forum Regular 100
I think violence is as natural to humans as the emotion anger. That isn't to say that there aren't cultures that cultivate it further.
The_Silent_Guardian17's avatar

Generous Trader

7,050 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Millionaire 200
  • Friendly 100
Cat of Ice
I was asked to write a paper on this, and was wondering what you guys think. Don't worry, you are not doing my homework by replying. So are people born violent, or is it something we learn as we grow?

Something as we grow over a period of time the mind takes pathways of what they think is right or wrong.
Love Muffin88's avatar

Shameless Giver

9,500 Points
  • Clambake 200
  • Nudist Colony 200
  • Prayer Circle 200
I don't believe that people are born violent. Or any other way for that matter. I believe that it's a mixture of how you are raised, individual incidents, or a significant amount of incidents, that causes one to be on the violent side.
AllisaNero
I'm not a Freud basher or anything but he really isn't the best. His theories are outdated, untestable, ethnocentric, androcentric and based on very little evidence he was able to gather himself.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?
CH1YO
AllisaNero
I'm not a Freud basher or anything but he really isn't the best. His theories are outdated, untestable, ethnocentric, androcentric and based on very little evidence he was able to gather himself.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?


Someone who is able to objectively study violence in human beings. Freud wasn't able to do this so there has to be some huge question markers over the validity of his work.
Elizabeth Englander's book, 'Understanding Violence' tackles the question head on and Loucks book, 'Why we kill', looks at cross-cultural issues and addresses different views on violence across a number of disciplines.
It's recent, objective material. Far more valid than Freud.
Are you a violent person if you have little to no understanding of what you are doing?
CH1YO
AllisaNero
I'm not a Freud basher or anything but he really isn't the best. His theories are outdated, untestable, ethnocentric, androcentric and based on very little evidence he was able to gather himself.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?

Jung?
AllisaNero
CH1YO
AllisaNero
I'm not a Freud basher or anything but he really isn't the best. His theories are outdated, untestable, ethnocentric, androcentric and based on very little evidence he was able to gather himself.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?


Someone who is able to objectively study violence in human beings. Freud wasn't able to do this so there has to be some huge question markers over the validity of his work.
Elizabeth Englander's book, 'Understanding Violence' tackles the question head on and Loucks book, 'Why we kill', looks at cross-cultural issues and addresses different views on violence across a number of disciplines.
It's recent, objective material. Far more valid than Freud.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?
The Sky Does Not Bow
CH1YO
AllisaNero
I'm not a Freud basher or anything but he really isn't the best. His theories are outdated, untestable, ethnocentric, androcentric and based on very little evidence he was able to gather himself.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?

Jung?


You're funny.
CH1YO
AllisaNero
CH1YO
AllisaNero
I'm not a Freud basher or anything but he really isn't the best. His theories are outdated, untestable, ethnocentric, androcentric and based on very little evidence he was able to gather himself.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?


Someone who is able to objectively study violence in human beings. Freud wasn't able to do this so there has to be some huge question markers over the validity of his work.
Elizabeth Englander's book, 'Understanding Violence' tackles the question head on and Loucks book, 'Why we kill', looks at cross-cultural issues and addresses different views on violence across a number of disciplines.
It's recent, objective material. Far more valid than Freud.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?


Englander and Loucks
AllisaNero
CH1YO
AllisaNero
CH1YO
AllisaNero
I'm not a Freud basher or anything but he really isn't the best. His theories are outdated, untestable, ethnocentric, androcentric and based on very little evidence he was able to gather himself.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?


Someone who is able to objectively study violence in human beings. Freud wasn't able to do this so there has to be some huge question markers over the validity of his work.
Elizabeth Englander's book, 'Understanding Violence' tackles the question head on and Loucks book, 'Why we kill', looks at cross-cultural issues and addresses different views on violence across a number of disciplines.
It's recent, objective material. Far more valid than Freud.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?


Englander and Loucks


You're struggling with the singular; it cannot be that two people is the best.
CH1YO
The Sky Does Not Bow
CH1YO
AllisaNero
I'm not a Freud basher or anything but he really isn't the best. His theories are outdated, untestable, ethnocentric, androcentric and based on very little evidence he was able to gather himself.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?

Jung?


You're funny.

What's wrong with Jung?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games