Are humans essentially a territorial animal?

[clop]

They do say that alcohol subdues social conditioning and brings out our real instincts, be it declarations of love, hatred, the desire to have sex, or aggression in young (and old) males.

Countless times I have seen drunk lads become aggressive and pick fights for no other reason than that they are drunk. So does this infer that the natural (i.e. un-socially-conditioned) condition of the human male is territorial aggression?

Silverback gorillas fight off male competition and protect their harem and dominance. Does this explain why drunk guys in the pub beat each other up?

clop

[tdvance]

Chimpanzees form troupes which fight other troupes who invade their territory, so I imagine humans are similar. We also "mark territory": ever see a kid lick a donut to keep another kid from eating it?

For fighting male competition, that's from the alpha trying to keep all the females to himself. We still do the alpha-beta thing, just not as strongly as the animals. (Ever feel creeped out when a real, well, creep, hits on a female friend of yours, even if a platonic friend? Creeps are betas or even gammas) I did go to the DC zoo a year and a half ago, and watched as a smaller gorilla approached a female, only to have a bigger male chase him away.

[Romanus]

I think it depends on your definition of territoriality. If you mean protection of a group, then I think that's fully innate, something evident from stone age tribes through nations. When it comes to individuals though, I think it gets tricky; just because alcohol disinhibits certain actions doesn't mean that they're innate or adaptive. Reckless aggression (picking fights for the heck of it) would be evolutionarily counterproductive, while aggression vis-a-vis mate protection would not, IMO.

[grant hutchison]

Countless times I have seen drunk lads become aggressive and pick fights for no other reason than that they are drunk. So does this infer that the natural (i.e. un-socially-conditioned) condition of the human male is territorial aggression?

On a point of usage: a person infers; an observation implies. (Drives me mad, that one. )

But it's the same small number of males, over and over again, who stage this sort of behaviour. Perhaps one shouldn't generalize from a small proportion of the population who pick fights when their judgement is impaired (or who impair their judgement in order to pick fights).

Grant Hutchison

[BigDon]

They do say that alcohol subdues social conditioning and brings out our real instincts, be it declarations of love, hatred, the desire to have sex, or aggression in young (and old) males.

Countless times I have seen drunk lads become aggressive and pick fights for no other reason than that they are drunk. So does this infer that the natural (i.e. un-socially-conditioned) condition of the human male is territorial aggression?

Silverback gorillas fight off male competition and protect their harem and dominance. Does this explain why drunk guys in the pub beat each other up?

clop

Clop, this is a silly post.

No, all alcohol does is interfere with the proper functioning of your nervous system and other key features of your metabolism. You are not forbidden to drink and drive because you become "too human".

No magic truth formula. You're just as likely to lie, shoot yourself in the foot or drive your car into the back of a school bus. What grand social story arcs could we derive from that? Alcohol messes you up. Would it make you feel better if you knew that huffing paint, dropping LSD, snorting crank, coke and ground up percocets and just about any other chemical intoxicant will do the same, when looked at over all, amongst all the users. You're just probably more familiar with drunks is all.

Ever see drunk animals, like birds or elephants? They do wild and crazy "stuff" too! Blackbirds drunk on pyrocantha berries will form huge flocks and then buzz down on the freeway and windsurf over the windshields of cars. Freaks out the drivers. Elephants drunk on eating green mangos do all sorts of outragous behavior, including regretable mating behavior. A whole new meaning to "Dude! Who was that hippo I saw you with last night!"

And I'm speaking as a person who has done dumb stuff after tieing one on. Ever wake-up, hung over as hell, check your knuckles, and go, "Ah man, who did I beat up, and why?" 'Cause you have a nice set of overlapping teeth marks on both sets? Then you gotta do a body check on yourself, to make sure you hadn't been stabbed or anything. (Worse part was, the last thing I remembered was I was at a funeral, looking solumn.)

As it turned out, I was attacked walking home, but still, I was sick to my stomach with worry. I had no clue if the police were going to be tapping on my front door any second. With charges I would have no way to defend myself against. Memory did come back later.

Silliest darn fight I'd ever been it. I didn't think I was remembering it right until witnesses confirmed it.

I kept knocking the SOB down, only to look down, feel sorry for him and pick him back up and try to dust him off. He'ed haul off and hit me, even showing a modicum of skill with a combo or two and I'd knock him down again after getting hit three or four times. (I have a nice weight advantage over a lot of guys. On a short, wide frame.) I had to knock him down and pick him up *four* freakin' times. One of the local market groceries emptied out and broke us up by "restraining" him. The other guy was pretty beat up by then though and was played out.

Each time I knocked him down I thought the fight was over, so I'd pick him up to set him on his way and to see if he was all right. Now that's drunk.

[chrissy]

*LOL* BD, that reminds me of my son, he had been out one night and had a few drinks, he received a phone call from one of his friends and said to me he was going back out to meet him, he grabbed his iPod Touch, popped the earphones in and off he went. Where he walked is a long dark and not people friendly area to wander once night comes as it is out of the beaten track. This crackhead who was supposed to be the tough guy on the town had followed my son and tried to sneak up on him beat him up and rob him, he made the biggest mistake of his ignorant life, before he had a chance to move from lifting hs fist to swinging it to the back of my sons head my son swung around and blatted this guys nose twice as this fool tried for at least one hit of his target my son grabbed his arm swung him around.....yes he did some damage to this fools arm too and gave him a final punch, while this fool was on the floor struggling to get up my son just pointed and said, "it would be safer for you to remain there". The fool nodded and did what he was told. This was a scary moment for me as like you Don I expected a knock at the door from the military police. My son is in the army and a tough little cookie (that's ma boy). Later I did hear this fool was asked what had happened to him and his reply was, "I made a very big mistake".

As for being drunk and bringing out the real instincts, nope IMO it just disconnects the persons brain from the rest of their bodies and makes them look like total idiots.

[BigDon]

To answer the question in the title though, I'm going to give it a big "yes". Just not for the reasons proposed.

[chrissy]

They can be very territorial and very protective of their brood, I'd fight to the death to protect my family. Drink has nothing to do with that.

[clop]

Clop, this is a silly post.

Ha ha, your reply made me laugh, but I don't think you can under-estimate the power of conditioning.

I can think of a lot of animals where two males brought together immediately start fighting, especially if there are females around. Cockerels, possums, goats, dogs, gorillas, foxes, cats, lions, tigers, koalas, eagles etc. These animals haven't been subjected to social conditioning and they retain their wild instincts. They don't behave to a set of norms. Human social conditioning is pervasive. "No sex with members of your own family." "No sex with girls between the age of menache and 16." "Be civil all the time." "Don't hit people you don't like." "Don't steal things." "Don't chew with your mouth open." "Cover your mouth when you cough." "Wear clothes." "Don't urinate in public." "Don't fart in company." "Don't trespass on other peoples property." "Try to be faithful to one partner."

Seems funny that when people get drunk they tend to do the opposite. The same things that many animals do naturally.

Heh heh I once saw a bird that had got drunk eating partially-fermented fruit. It was hilarious! It kept falling off the branch and getting itself in a flap to regain its footing, then falling off again a few seconds later.

clop

[BigDon]

I'm glad you didn't take it as a flame job.

Since you seem to be interested, one of the major mutations humans underwent early on, beside the mutation that destroyed our ability to synthesis ascorbates from glucose, (I had to ask a vet about the average dog's phenominal healing abilities as compared to people. Seems people are some of the few vertibrates that can't make vitamin C on demand, which greatly affects healing rates...Well, that's the story I got.), was the mutation that allowed us to ignore MUPs. Or Major Urinary Proteins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_urinary_proteins

Human social conditioning is pervasive because humans are pervasive, and we live in societies...

If that hadn't happened I doubt seriously humanity could have progressed past the hunter gatherer state.

[clop]

True, true, but since most conditioning is done by society after birth, it's in the higher functioning areas of our brains. Take that away, as when people are drunk, and we revert to the lower functioning areas. I think that the true nature of our lower functioning instincts is suffocated by our upbringing.

clop

edit to add - it would be a fantastically interesting experiment to take, say, 10 three-year-old boys and 10 three-year-old girls, and put them naked in a warm closed environment like ten acres of walled forest, with a natural supply of food available, and see what happens as they grow up without any external guidance

[BigDon]

It's been done. They die.

[grant hutchison]

edit to add - it would be a fantastically interesting experiment to take, say, 10 three-year-old boys and 10 three-year-old girls, and put them naked in a warm closed environment like ten acres of walled forest, with a natural supply of food available, and see what happens as they grow up without any external guidance

That knocking at your door? That's the Social Work department with a police escort. They'd like to talk to you.

Grant Hutchison

[kleindoofy]

... drunk lads become aggressive and pick fights ... So does this infer that the natural (i.e. un-socially-conditioned) condition of the human male is territorial aggression? ...

No, that alone does not imply it, but about everything else humans do during their waking hours does. Male and female. No alcohol necessary.

Territorial defence and aggression, in all its allegorical forms, is one of the most important motors of our civilisation. Without it there would be no competition, no desire to excel, only stagnation.

[BigDon]

Hey Grant, but if you are an English king of old and wish to find out, "What language God speaks" that doesn't happen.

But you do discover things.

[grant hutchison]

Hey Grant, but if you are an English king of old and wish to find out, "What language God speaks" that doesn't happen.

I don't know of the English king you mention.
Frederick II of Germany and James IV of Scotland had experiments carried out on children who were raised in isolation by mute (or simply silent) nurses, to find out if they would speak the original language of mankind. That's a bit different from what clop proposes, though.

Grant Hutchison

[BigDon]

I don't know of the English king you mention.

Grant Hutchison

Oh that's easy!

I was half ing it and you provided the correct answer!

I knew somebody would.

[grant hutchison]

Oh that's easy!

I was half ing it and you provided the correct answer!

I knew somebody would.

So was the English king the German one or the Scottish one?

Grant Hutchsion

[BigDon]

Oh, I'm not going to give Lianachan any more reason to not like me...

[Jens]

Countless times I have seen drunk lads become aggressive and pick fights for no other reason than that they are drunk. So does this infer that the natural (i.e. un-socially-conditioned) condition of the human male is territorial aggression?

It seems fairly intuitive to me that human beings are territorial. Otherwise, why would we have locks on doors?

But I don't think what happens in bars has that much to do with territoriality. Isn't it more about social position? We are social animals, and so a lot of our behavior has to do with social dominance.

[kleindoofy]

If I understood it correctly, the OP refers to territorial aggression and not territorial defence, i.e. not of protection of self, home or children, etc., but of attack.

Of course, without the aggression, defence wouldn't be neccessary, so I guess it weighs out.

I disagree, however, that alcohol causes us to display atavistic behavior and that the influence society is the only reason we don't act like apes or primitive cavemen. Humans have created societies everywhere they are, so it would seem that cooperation, i.e. channelling territorial aggression at least in part to a common good is inherent in the "lower functioning areas" of the human (homo sapiens sapiens) brain.

[Jens]

I disagree, however, that alcohol causes us to display atavistic behavior and that the influence society is the only reason we don't act like apes or primitive cavemen. Humans have created societies everywhere they are, so it would seem that cooperation, i.e. channeling territorial aggression at least in part to a common good is inherent in the "lower functioning areas" of the human (homo sapiens sapiens) brain.

Are you implying that apes and primitive caveman don't/didn't cooperate? Seriously, though, I agree with you, but I'm not sure that aggression and cooperation are necessarily exclusive. Aggression can be part of cooperation. I think essentially that when we drink we tend to act the same way that we normally act, but we just get a little bit worse at being discrete about it.

[kleindoofy]

Are you implying that apes and primitive caveman don't/didn't cooperate? ...

No. I was just using a popular visualisation.

... but I'm not sure that aggression and cooperation are necessarily exclusive. ...

They're not. That's why I said that we channel territorial aggression (at least in part) to a common good.

[JustAFriend]

They do say that alcohol subdues social conditioning and brings out our real instincts, be it declarations of love, hatred, the desire to have sex, or aggression in young (and old) males.

Countless times I have seen drunk lads become aggressive and pick fights for no other reason than that they are drunk. So does this infer that the natural (i.e. un-socially-conditioned) condition of the human male is territorial aggression?

Silverback gorillas fight off male competition and protect their harem and dominance. Does this explain why drunk guys in the pub beat each other up?

clop

Have you NEVER watched any football or organized sports?? The entire point of the games is territorial...

[novaderrik]

everything humans do is territorial. it's what we are all about and is the basis of our cultures and civilizations.
there is nothing wrong with that- it brings out our best qualities.

[Argos]

Territoriality in humans is a complex cultural construction. And even after this construction we are not as territorial as, say, canids. We are hunter-gatherers; nomads by nature.

[mugaliens]

Chimpanzees form troupes which fight other troupes who invade their territory, so I imagine humans are similar. We also "mark territory": ever see a kid lick a donut to keep another kid from eating it?

Only in the movies.

I have had this irrestible urge to urinate behind several intermediate perimeter trees while camping as a way of telling the wolves, bears, coyotes, cougars, and beavers to back off... Doesn't work very well on the racoons, squirrels, and crows, however, as they're always getting into our stuff overnight, even if hauled via 550 chord into a 50' tree. Only the anti-bear food cages at the national parks keeps 'em out.

As for the female aspect, I simply am who I am, and I've not been without female companionship. Doesn't mean we're bedmates! Just means that I have some very good friends with whom I feel very fulfilled because we connect in ways in which many people don't. On occasion I've held some in my arms as the campfire embers burned down, and once in a while, we, as friends, kiss one another good night. It's not a lover's kiss - it's a friend's kiss. At this point in my life, I think I'd prefer the latter, as I know that if I ever needed, I could call one of them up and talk all night, if not actually move into their apartment for a short stay. Yeah, they're that good of friends. Just friends - we both know it.



For fighting male competition, that's from the alpha trying to keep all the females to himself. We still do the alpha-beta thing, just not as strongly as the animals. (Ever feel creeped out when a real, well, creep, hits on a female friend of yours, even if a platonic friend? Creeps are betas or even gammas) I did go to the DC zoo a year and a half ago, and watched as a smaller gorilla approached a female, only to have a bigger male chase him away.[/QUOTE]

[mugaliens]

everything humans do is territorial. it's what we are all about and is the basis of our cultures and civilizations.
there is nothing wrong with that- it brings out our best qualities.

And our worst!

[mugaliens]

That's why I said that we channel territorial aggression (at least in part) to a common good.

Bingo. Instead of beating one another over the head with fists or a club, we've evolved to both lay our cards on the table as well as pool our resources. We're still a highly competitive species, however, much further from the simple Star Trek TNG goal of a money-less economy than we from frontier-ism. Which means we're still highly territorial.

I think the "common good" is far less the verbalized concept we perceive it to be, and it much more the nonverbalized outpouring of our genetic makeup. We're really not that different than our mammalian brethren in the wild - we'd certainly like to think we are, and in some respects, particularly with respect to both higher learning and constructural knowledge, yes - we excell.