Social Coercion Theory and the Evolution of Human Violence

Some scientists argue that human uniqueness is the result of two primary features: one, that we are a powerful species, and two, that we gained our power rapidly. In this clip from the 2015 World Science Festival program “Planet of the Humans: The Leap to the Top,” molecular biologist Paul Bingham attempts to account for both of these features through an approach known as “social coercion theory,” which posits that humans control the conflicts of interest among non-kin to engage in large-scale social cooperation.

Original Program Date: May 29, 2015

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel for all the latest from WSF.

[EugeneKhutoryansky]

Many other animals are able to manage their conflicts between non-kin members of their society. I am amazed that he would actually say otherwise.

[charlesbrightman]

In my analysis I have identified three basic choices every conscious entity has:
1. Help;
2. Hurt;
3. Neutral.
(And, Help, Hurt, Neutral to whom?).

Category two "Hurt" has entities (knowingly or unknowingly) "hurt" others for possibly the entities own gain.  These are what many of human's laws and enforcement actions try to deal with.

But, it appears that as long as conscious entities exist, in this state of existence or any other we might have, those choices will remain.  We have to deal with "assholes" in this state of existence we are in, and if we truly do have an eternal conscious existence and are an individual in a society of individuals even there, we may have to deal with "assholes" for literally eternity.

[iAmTheSingularity]

So...whomever can exert the most force cooperatively decides what the rest of us must do? Somehow this doesn't bring me comfort. It sounds like he is saying the key to human success is ultimately the very thing we identify with tyranny, genocide and fascism. I'd rather do without those, actually.

[charlesbrightman]

Two basic thoughts I have seen with "pure evolution":
1. Something exists and then some "entity" evolves to interact with that something;
2. An "entity" evolves and exists in an environment which is either favorable, neutral, or unfavorable to it.

The first way to me predisposes a "higher intelligence" that somehow, for example a certain flower exists, so now we have to "evolve" a species that can interact with that flower.  How does it know to do that?

The second way seems to me to be more pure evolution.  An entity emerges into this universe, into an environment that is either favorable, neutral, or not favorable to it.  It either survives, grows and thrives, or it doesn't.

Those that can survive, do survive.  Those that can't, don't.
Those that can grow, do grow.  Those that can't, don't.
Those that can thrive, do thrive.  Those that can't, don't.

[urklenurkle]

Anybody else bothered by his mouth noises