Beta males won: How violence is responsible for evolution of modern humans | Richard Wrangham
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Richard Wrangham: Viol...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- ROKA: roka.com/ and use code LEX to get 20% off your first order
- Theragun: therabody.com/lex to get 30 day trial
- ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com... and use code LexPod to get 3 months free
- NI: www.ni.com/per...
- Grammarly: grammarly.com/lex to get 20% off premium
GUEST BIO:
Richard Wrangham is a biological anthropologist at Harvard, specializing in the study of primates and the evolution of violence, sex, cooking, culture, and other aspects of ape and human behavior.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com...
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman
Conclusion: males that evolved to be cooperatively violent did better than one single male Leader who was stronger and more violent than any single other male. Therefore the less violent and more social male sapiens where better at violence/warfare (as groups) than a single alpha male. Charisma and political skills become most important, then strength.
Brilliantly said
I love the comment
Prefer your conclusion 😆
That's not a bad thing
Astute observation.
Exactly. Cooperation becomes a weapon
Chimps had been observed to gang up and murder their alphas when the alphas become too selfish. I think our ancestors did the same. This made charisma more important in gaining power rather than raw strength and aggression.
The benefits of this, along with the introduction of monogamy, is that males no longer have to beat up each other to get laid and used the extra time to improve production and society.
Alphas and Betas in fact do not exist.
Who thinks they exist should maybe watch some more normal takes on
Manlyness?
Like Vincey, TimTamTom, HUSH, Emma Thorne, Hbomberguy, ect?
@@loturzelrestaurant alpha is just a label for the one on top in certain animal groups. Applying it in human society which what a lot of alt rights do is dumb asf.
@Heffe sure, sigma boy
Loturzel Restaurant take a psychology class, or if you’re still in grade school read a book
hyena's do that too
It's almost like human cooperation is the most powerful tool we have ever had...
And the greatest individuals gets the greatest collective to cooperate with them. And yes lies can be used to achiveve this but in those circumstances the bases for support and the achievements you have reached are unstable and short-term.
@@TheAdekrijger not necessarily
@@SingularityMedia Hence the title of the video..
Adaptability
Nope
Because none of you cooperate
“When you domesticate wild animals what you’re doing is you’re reducing reactive aggression.”
Feels like a sort of Deja vu nowadays.
Hence the rural and urban political devide
@F.W. they got "civilized" through colonialism
We domesticated ourselves.
Alphas and Betas in fact do not exist.
Who thinks they exist should maybe watch some more normal takes on
Manlyness?
Like Vincey, TimTamTom, HUSH, Emma Thorne, Hbomberguy, ect?
Excessive reactive aggression is a suboptimal trait in a social mammal who relies on co-operation for survival. Humans likely sacrificed some of their violent tendencies through evolution for the betterment of the species.
Religion has a big part in reducing our aggression. It’s why Christianity is the religion of pity. Can’t fight each other if you always feel bad for yourself.
@@Shatamx You don't know your history at all. Try again
@@ethimself5064 Please, elaborate.
@@Shatamx I do agree with you. What I observe is that Christians in general, including their Institutions and Churches, are pretty good in ignoring Christ's advices. Not any different than other religions thought.
The biggest hypocrites are the ones pointing at others and calling them by their own names.
So, in a sense, humans domesticated themselves?
We’ll look around😂 if the lives we live don’t scream domesticated then I don’t know what does
God domesticated us but we took it too far
yes but how? a virus wiped out 98% of us and what was left were beta males?
Wow. You just realised we are part of biomass of "domesticated" pigs, cow's,
Chook's .... The next time you see a bus full of people, just think of it as a Human cattle truck.
@@mod.s.7921 yeah, it's called colonization.. i
I believe it left from the shores of Europe - A transmutated virulent strain of DNA set out to Destroy
"Real" Humans , with a mathematical algorithm
Of beating nature into submission.
I am a zeta male, I transcend above all this nonsense.
@Strauss Yes I fly under the radar, far beyond detection.
And you’ll get the mate to match…
You mean your last in line, devious, and you learn from the mistakes of those that go before you?? sure.. ok, I see that
You should have held your original premise mattizzle. Above reproach from the betas and the alphas due to high intellect and high social IQ. Undoubtedly this is a class.
Wouldn’t it be more nonsensical to classify yourself as something with no frame of reference?
“That’s just a great content right there” gotta watch the full one!
You can see this in chimpanzee groups. A ruthless alpha leader that rules by fear, intimidation and violence lives a highly stressful life. They take everything for themselves and leave nothing for the ones that help keep them in their top position. This eventually leads to under dogs grouping together and killing the leader.
In any -successful- group, the leader is cooperative and can often be seen grooming lower status females AND males and helping them all get enough to be satisfied.
The second he pronounced homosapien in said manner, I knew he was smart
Ive been dying laughing
Or he's just English.
How can you call this guy smart when he considers for example, people in the Pentagon and CIA as ‘Beta males’?!
And if they ARE the alphas…where’s the Beta male coalition he speaks so certainly of?
@@nicholaspieniazek well if you think about it this way, the Pentagon is full of people with a gang mentality. People that are bred to work together. Those are completely betas. Alphas in the CIA would be the psycho killer element that they employ status quo there
@@nicholaspieniazek if they were all Alphas that system would crumble quick as shit
Domestication seems to be a double-edged sword. Meaning you also domesticate yourself in the process, and hence become a very easy prey for the psychopaths to "take charge".
Agreed. This is the dichotomy we've had to face since creating civilization (and will continue to). Domesticated enough that we can function in an increasingly-complex world, with increasing division of labor to boot, but not _too_ domesticated so as to be completely screwed when a wolf (literal or metaphorical) comes a-knockin'.
A weak man is more dangerous than a strong man.
@F.W. The issue is that we all know that farming is from the tropics and subtropics and not from boreal or temperate regions. North Eastern African has domesticated enset, the African auroch and West Africans have domesticated their foods like the guinea fowl, sorghum, African rice... shared same cattle as the NEA and other animals like goat and sheep domesticates.The tropics have more resources which would result in more time and leisure very basal civilisations like Indus Valley, Ta Seti, Sumer, Maya, Aztec are all on the tropics. Europeans came from the tropics and have continued to mixed with y dna e1b1b farmers who travelled from Africa and are responsible for difussing agriculture and farming in the middle east and also the last member of the Afro Asiatic languages and the only one outside of Africa which we know is Semetic. Agriculture came into Europe 7000 yrs onwards ago but these were from the Near East in two waves. The people of Europe like Cheddar man were largely seperated from the tropics and subtropics and would have stay hunter gatherers like todays Amazonians. It was brought by people who were from resource rich soils, food diversity and other resources and ideas that were transported to Europe in which they were valued. To be honest todays Europeans are a melting pot and inherited from both regions from plethora of ways.There main ancestry of their farming in Turkey is quite remarkable with access to more tropical regions they had acesss to ideas and those adapt the farming life to indigenous European plants and fauna. Some parts of Turkey are like Europe so the adjustment was not too drastic to bring the idea over but non tropical people who are giving domestication ideas is like preaching to the choir there is a reason why Africans and Indians and other Asians did not die off like Amerindians and Aborigines due to diseases. It was because the had flourishing societies already present.
@F.W. I think the mental domestication may have been olded than Homo Sapians Sapians itself the species of the extinct homo Sapians. To answer your question they would be in theory more aggressive than their brethen all other behavioural attributes would be consistent however. I could imagine these human groups could be much more smaller in structure and differ from todays trible society as I know for ar African minorities like the San they can have several male collaborating leaders and same for the Himba. To honest I think this behaviour may have been a homo Sapian attribute or pre hom Sapians and not the sub species that we are all today homo sapians sapians.
Romans vs Barbarians
It's not tyrannical for the weak to band together to oppose the strong, however confrontation must always remain bounded by risk, otherwise there is no cost to disagreement and no incentive for agreement.
This is what's happening with today's woke culture
the comments here are so cringey
people who obsess over this alpha/beta dichotomy are incredibly insecure about their place in the world and tend to be insufferable to be around
Beta talk
somebody send this video to joe rogan..bwahahahaha
beta boi
I don’t know why, many people, as in the “nature vs. nurture” debate, become so insistent on an “either or” perspective when reality clearly shows us it’s both. And many of this other arguments are in a way just a microcosm or that debate. Like did we displace Neanderthals because of breeding or violence, when it’s clearly a matter of both, likely along with some other variables. This need to pin explanations on one singular cause is so outmoded and unnecessary.
Alphas and Betas in fact do not exist.
Who thinks they exist should maybe watch some more normal takes on
Manlyness?
Like Vincey, TimTamTom, HUSH, Emma Thorne, Hbomberguy, ect?
If you ask some biologist they will say that its both. But if you ask people in sociology they are on the side of like 100% nurture, which is obviously just wrong, and very arrogant.
Yeah it's also ironic given that if you're a sociologist you ought to be paying attention to how people behave right now as we speak. People cheating on their spouses, promiscuity....hoarding things, cartoonishly massive profit etc. Nature is always there and sometimes ensures pure self-priorotization.
Everything is 100% nature, that's why it's a stupid debate.
In 1963, Conrad Lorenz made a stir with his book, On Aggression, that tried to make a case for humans being inherently violent and bellicose. It was roundly criticized by Prof. Lorenz's own peers, and it simply doesn't comport with reality. Human progress has been marked by cooperative behavior. It was the only way naked apes could survive after descending from the trees: by presenting a unified front to predators. One man alone is easy prey; six men with clubs are a formidable adversary, even for a hungry lion.
Humans have always been superb at building networks between tribes and providing mutual aid, with an expectation of mutual reciprocity when times are tough. In contrast to us, Neanderthals lived in isolated, inbred clans. That difference alone may explain why we survived, and Neanderthals did not. Alpha males are not more violent than beta males -- they are better at building alliances and promoting cooperation. It goes on around us all the time -- in sports, in business, in social organizations. The same man is an alpha where his expertise and talents are vital, but a beta in a group where his expertise is not relevant. A man is not always an alpha or always a beta. Context matters.
Humans are co-operative relative to chimpanzees perhaps, but the notion that humans are not inherently violent and bellicose is hilariously false.
A simple traipse through history, say the 20th century is enough to cure you of that notion. Read about unit 731, let's say.
What humans are is capable of managing social integration, co-operation, and pro-social aggression (competition) well enough that it can outcompete violence (which we are also capable of) in the long term.
Hohhyeahh 😩💦💦
Beta!
This is truly the most beta title I've ever read
Self fulfilling.
The betas are those who are so insecure, they’re afraid to entertain the subject.
@@slartibartfast7921 How about the betas are the ones who entertain the subject so much as to give themselves closure lmaooo
@@manuelmartinez8908 Nah, little man.
What would you title it Alfalfa?
"We didn't have a mind that favored role-specialization, and anxiety over female sexual activity related to feelings of male ownership. That all came later. We became human beings in this other world of values and physiological attitudes. Problem is, the mushroom faded." -Terence McKenna
Was going to mention this, thank you
Part of the reason the less physically “brutish” characteristics won out also is because of the dominance of weaponry. It’s more important to be quick and nimble when wielding sharp weapons than to be strong and big.
Na bro
@@Percules15 This is actually true. In gun fights, pistols or rifles, even with machetes, it's nimble guys that usually survive. Bigger men are at a very serious disadvantage in a gun fight - they present a larger target, larger internal organs and they gas out a lot quicker. I live in a third world country with a significant gang and violence problem - this fact is well known. It's skinny, mean guys that basically run the streets here - and the prisons.
@@usernameonutube surely you are kidding.. cooperate lol
Alphas and Betas in fact do not exist.
Who thinks they exist should maybe watch some more normal takes on
Manlyness?
Like Vincey, TimTamTom, HUSH, Emma Thorne, Hbomberguy, ect?
@@JoBlakeLisbon I saw the movie Underworld with Kate Beckinsale. Those fine motor skills are excellent at aiming guns. Those fine motor skills are better at wielding swords.
If you had a soccer teams comprised of Alpha males it would be a poor team, even though they all might as individuals be the most genetically gifted. By far cooperation is the more important ingredient in success.
@@smoothinvestigator I wouldn’t use fascism as an example. Fascism is more so unity within a state to work towards common goals and ideas, often with economic planning coming from the gov with cooperation with corporations. Fascism tends to fight fro dominance against other nation states not within its own state
Alpha males don't play soccer at all
@@smoothinvestigator Military juntas would be a much more accurate example.
Thats a faulty argument. The whole idea of the alpha male is that its one of a kind, one above all. Its usually the strongest/smartest individual. Its called the captain of the soccer team:). And he is needed, otherwise the whole game falls apart.
Your 100% right, that’s why that has happened before many times
Turns out cooperation beats individual advantage.
Exactly, it has nothing to do with "alpha" and "beta" males.
Yes. 1,000 strong soldiers are better than 100,000 weak idiots
Silly and simplistic, u need force those who dont want to cooperate more willingly to do.. Violence is not used on its own, manupulation and exertion.. Better to describe alpha groups and beta groups, dictators tend to fall into the bad alpha male example, in which the violent male joins a political group to gain power..
I think that Maquiavelli exposes that in his book The Prince when he says that rulers who are willing to obtain what they want by any means have an advantage against ¨good moral¨rulers who are guided by a moral code. Of course an alfa takes what he wants, but in a sarcity world where you have to compete for resources. After the Industrial Revolution and the decrease of poverty, the benefits of civilization and cooperation have made those means obsolete because they are not necessary and the cost of violence is not worthy if resources are not that scarce. I think Eric Weinstein said we don´t evolve at the same rate our technology does, so it creates problems. We still have governments that are basically monarquies that changed the divine right for the majority right, but are the same. We are not evolved yet to our world and that creates problems like poverty having a lot of resources, or the alfa-beta male problem where some people are willing to get things by any means because that is genetically driven, and with the right conditions for that to flourish (poverty, gang culture, etc.) those characterictics will be potencialized. Our society doesn´t tolerate a behaviour that was useful in the past because we don´t evolve as fast as what we invent.
Hmm. In the natural world, co-operation is highest when resources are scarce, and conflict is highest when resources are abundant. But that is between SPECIES. So you might be right when it comes to INDIVIDUALs of the same species.
@@Yamikaiba123 Cooperation is highest when resources are scarce? Where hss that ever happened in human history. The is the definition of how wars start. You'll see soon when grocery stores are nearly empty.
Guess all the ppl fighting over the last toy on black Friday just don't understand themselves.
@@kevinjohnson3925 Lol I'm not talking about human history, I'm talking about Community Ecology. Every species including humans.
I would argue that it’s not completely genetically driven. We are humans not animals. We can go against our lizard brain and choose to not take more than we need. Anybody who watches this video and decides “oh I’m going to be an alpha” well in order to be an alpha you have to be good at something or you’re considered a poiser and people will ridicule you.
If you're gonna white a whole paragraph about something make sure that you spell machiavelli right because if you cant even do that chances are your opinion is trash
When we started using weapons the effective violence was equalized. Then the ability to commit collective violence gave rise to dominate tribes.
That's a very good hypothesis
Abe Lincoln freed all men. Samuel Colt made them equal.
@F.W. pay attention, he is talking about alpha males in the perspective of reactionary violence. It doesnt mean those "betas " dont have a new form of "alpha".
When the brain develops and the sapiens realized that he doesnt have to respond with equal violence in the moment of the attack, the inteligence becomes another relevant factor of superiority.
That’s exactly right. This is the missing link here. The conversation above is lacking without it.
Survival of the friendliest
Human organization/cooperation is our defining characteristic because it gives our species the best opportunity for survival. Although it’s not the entire story, culture is a living thing and constantly changing based on the needs of the majority. We didn’t just decide to become less animalistic, our environment dictates this. If the environment changes the human species is more than adept at changing as evidenced by the various cultures and beliefs around the world that are anything but “Beta”. Also, physical traits are not a reliable measure of aggression in the human species.
I'd say it's our intelligence. Plenty of animals live in herds/packs/prides/pods etc, but our intelligence is unique. Language, cooperation, tool use are possible because of our big brains
Where we went wrong is we started getting more than 100 people involved in making decisions for a group. I.e. government. Government is now the violent alpha in modern form. Individual violent alphas that rape and kill should be handled by groups of 100 people max. Imprisonment or Hanging. When one million people start making decisions, then nobody gets what they want. Because half of those million people impose their will on the other half in every single country.
"A tree only has the space that it can crowd another out of; every man must look out for himself." - Odin
As i'm reading the history of Renaissance Europe and why Europe rose above China, Japan and the Arabs who at the time seemed more advanced (gunpowder, paper, navy) this make so much sense. Basically because of Europes fragmented geography which fostered fractured tribes and allowed room for 'beta' competition rather than one rule Alpha dominance as was the case of Asia and the Middleeast, Europe came out the victor. (Anyway at least for the last 500 years)
Title of the book?
Sounds like the premise of Guns, Germs and Steel.
@@Cyberspine Not quite. GGS completely ignores the role of culture from the Greeks onward. The idea of citizen for instance. GGS is basicaĺly ecological determinism.
Fascinating. That makes a lot of sense. The cradle of innovation is a group of diverse non domineering competitors and that is basically what you're saying Europe had. This feels like a principle about democracy and social hierarchy that's really eye opening and applies in myriad fashion. It shows why free and democratic systems always win out or emerge in the end.
@@analoguedragon7438 The rise and fall of the great powers by Paul Kennedy
I'm a gamma male, I only respond to high frequencies
Everybody is alpha beta & omega. All that BS is Ego
Oh man, you can hear the self-declared alpha wannabes having a shit fit over this. “Yeah but I’m one of the alpha’s that survived” 😂
but im actually an alpha that survived
@@beerus553 lol, good one there.
I don’t know or care about alpha talk, I just know, that I survived because they did not kill me, as in shot me in my fucking face 10 times to make sure there’s no life. My survival came from their arrogance
We obviously aren’t that bright. We expect governments that originally took power by being the best killers to do right by us 😂😂
Lol accurate
His theory of human evolution is like what was sung in 'American Pie':
"But as the King was looking down
The Jester stole his thorny crown."
H. Sapiens is the Jester.
It makes sense now. The modem Homo sapiens who claim to be “alphas” also seem to be more primitive.
I don’t know how I never noticed this.
not gonna say "primitive" but they're definitely simple.
“Make Love, and War”. This is the way
If the long pause/gap at the end of all your videos is purposely giving us a chance to leave without an advert then thank you very much! I know they're gonna catch up with me but it still makes me very happy
civilization and its discontents
sigmund freud wrote about this indict always stayed with me.
he reasoned that that guilt was one of the most encountered issues in psycho-therapy.
he reasoned that the guilt was carried from ions ago when betas overthrew the alpha to access females.
that reminds me of that Navy Seal guy telling people that those who make it through the training are not the alpha males jocks but those who can work as a team.
Just concentrate on improving yourself, learn some skills and ignore this alpha, beta horseshit
only the shrigma male can rise to the top
The Alpha Male “in the wild” resorts to violence as that’s the only tool available to maintain and protect its status (controller of resources and first pick of the mating pyramids).
Human do the same today, the Alphas don’t need to resort to violence! It’s an inefficient way to maintain your Alpha Status, even in the wild, the Alpha Male that relies on violence gets taken out eventually (sooner rather than later most times)
Human Alphas don’t need to resort to violence, they have better tools to do the same thing that the Alpha in the wild does (to protect it’s status) but significantly reduce your chance of being taken out.
Its naive to think the same Alpha dynamics does not occur with humans today, just because the “Alpha” isn’t someone going around physically beating the living shit out of people.
He is speaking in terms of evolution. Intelligence won. What you call alpha today was a beta male 300k years ago
@@joshn7232 Of course intelligence won! Duuuh! Intelligence in terms of survival is effectively and efficiently maximizing your chance of survival.
300K years ago, Physical Violence was the format - intelligence meant you could defend yourself against physical violence, today intelligence is being able to defend yourself against a different kind of violence (or threat of violence) lawsuits, control of resources, cancellation, e.t.c
And just because the Alpha 300K years ago used violence does not mean they are less intelligent than the average Beta (in a non physical intelligence metric)
My main point is, physical violence is no longer an effective tool for maintaining alpha status, that does not mean there’s a lack of hierarchy or alpha status in today’s society.
What you call alpha today is a hybrid of beta + alpha 300K years ago. I doubt society’s civility came at the snap of a finger, as physical violence slowly became obsolete, the ability to defend yourself was still an intelligent survival strategy.
And new method of maintaining alpha status allow for more betas to become alphas too, where as 300K years ago there can only be only 1 or a few “Alphas” today we can have more alphas. Nonetheless the top is a an evolved hybrid of the alpha & beta of 300K yrs
And some of the alphas today would be betas 50yrs ago! You don’t have to go back 300K heads
How exactly does that "status" make sense today. Is a billionaire the alpha? He obviously has the resources but lots of girls aren't drawn just to a rich guy, so he's not at the top of any "mating pyramid". And in fact, there IS no "mating pyramid". There's some sort of fuzzy attractive scale we use, but one girl's 9 may be another girl's 6, or vice versa. And that doesn't even have that much to do with behavior anyway, it's also about appearance. Take a some fat pimpled guy and give him all the intelligence and confidence you want, add in some rando pickup course expertise, he won't compete with a tall handsome guy even if that guy lacks in confidence.
So the mating dynamic is far more complex than that "pyramid" stuff, and guess what so are the ressources. Actually, it's pretty simpleton to define resource as simply money. Yes, especially when it comes to not being poor, it is utterly important, but is making 1M a years as opposed to 75k a year enough to say the guy has access to more ressources? What if that richer guy doesn't have as many close people in his life, that provide emotional support? What if he's less healthy, easily prone to depression or unpleasant mood swings, not very smart or able to entertain himself easily?
The "Alpha" thing simply doesn't make much sense today unless applied to something specific, like the alpha of chess games or the alpha of picking up club chicks. Thinking there's "A" alpha status is just dumb.
@@2CSST2 Yeah, you and I live in different worlds mate!. But that’s fine.
@@2CSST2 TLDR
Bonobos do not have an "alpha" male, how does this expert not know this?
Have you considered that he just neglected to mention bonobos because he didn't need to mention them to prove his point?
@@mason4354 I think what you mean to say is that he left out the facts that disprove his hypothesis in order to make it sound plausible. That's called pseudoscience, for reference look up CONFIRMATION BIAS.
@@PhokenKuul I don't see it as confirmation bias when considering the context of the conversation. He wasn't referring to all apes but just speaking generally about simian socialization.
@@mason4354 So then at 3:30 when he states that the human species is unique among ALL other primates, you somehow believe that context makes that verifiably false statement true? What context makes a completely false statement true?
@@PhokenKuul look buddy, the point is, chimps is wack. I don't know what else to tell you. Wear your seat belt, drink milk, floss and have a good day.
Holy shit. I've never been forced to downvote a Lex Fridman video before. This is the first one. The guest is clearly wrong on many accounts. The changes in cranial bone structure do not objectively equate to lesser aggression in the species, we have to take into account the use of tools and group evolution, reprimand is also a form of aggression - violence is not limited to physical contact and it's foolish to assume so.
"Alpha males are males who respond with high reactive violence to any challenge to their status" - First of all, this classification of "beta" and "alpha" are foolish nomenclatures to use, the etymology isn't at all dead set on what they mean, they're highly subjective and can be manipulated to fit a wide range of behaviors. But let us assume that surely those who he described in that quote do not exist anymore. The millions of deaths caused by feudal lords, kings, supreme leaders, and presidents surely aren't the result of "reactive violence" in response to challenges in their status, surely.
Found the beta male.
@@jaekenzo64 According to the video I'm supposed to thank you, after all, you're calling me a winner. Not only that, but according to Dr. Wrangham our species does not have an alpha male in any group, so you too, are a beta male.
@@habibsspirit according to Dr wrangham...you objected to his theory in this video NOW you side with him to make your point. Classical beta male and soymale techniques to try to win the argument after soft ego is hurt by comment. I don't really give a shit what you say or do, you are beta. You may call me beta, it does not bother me.
@@jaekenzo64 I'm not interested in exchanging ad-hominems. I'll leave you to it.
Alpha males may not respond with violence to any challenge to their status, but they certainly make note of it and will respond some way or another - Betas just accept it to remain a part of the tribe
What a fascinating guest!
Lex's pocast is one of my few top favorites! ♡
This sounds familiar to the anime Beastars. They explain how their current society came to be through similar means of flushing out the alpha behaviors
Those evolutionary changes through domestication don't occur in large, aggressive male dogs though. They are still brimming with reactive violence. They are territorial. They still have the urge to attack and kill in an instant. They still have longer skulls and very male attributes. Or do these changes only occur in animals that are not extremely violent by nature?
This dynamic is completely ignored in the modern "Alpha/Beta" debate and deserves major consideration as to how it's changed society. Betas have congregated in all areas of power and influence - yet modern discourse treats them like Alphas.
Are there any serious scientists though that actually classify humans as alphas/betas like chimpanzees ? Except for those embarrassing pick up artists ? 😂😂😂
@@Leo-hr7yq well, the dude talking is an anthropologist at Harvard, so there’s at least one
@@iammichaeldavis idk seems entirely like layers upon layers of category error to me. Like I would say Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals and conception of master/slave morality is far more grounded, or even like Baudrillard or McLuhan adding a supplemental consideration of technology and its mediation of reality through images. Like wtf is "violence", I feel like the entirety of reality itself could be categorized as such if one wanted to, since time necessitates change and change forces spacial "violence", it just seems far too vague and clearly doesn't consider the ubiquitousness of _structural_ violence, ie the violence ideologically obfuscated/abstracted into systems, just purely individually focused as if civilization itself, not to mention relayed/lived collective memories/trauma from its history, doesn't exist and subsume us in a totality which sculps our entire ontological perception. Not to mention, no consideration from a perspective of process metaphysics a la dialectical/historical materialism or something (Marx, Hegel, etc) which honestly seems far more descriptively accurate as it reconciles with all the particle/wave relativity/quantum bullshit inherently. Zizek's book Violence also comes to mind for obvious reasons.
_"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."_ - some guy
@@iammichaeldavis He was using those terms because he's relating it to primates. He mentions that at the start of the video.
@@iammichaeldavis he is talking about alpha male from the perspective of reactionary violence.
The lowering of our soft palates allowed us to make the range of sounds that constitute speech, but make us more prone to choking.
What is best in life: Uplift your enemies, see them running at you, and hear the cheers of the women!!.. by neoBeta
ua-cam.com/video/2UQ63LU9ELw/v-deo.html Cohen the Barbarian says it best.....
Classic! Well played sir ... well played!
This question is ridiculous all life is violent, something else must die in order for others to live.
I could listen to this fella talk all day. Very interesting subject and well explained.
I was just thinking about this mans description of the evolution of humans from a very strong ape like creature into our current configuration. could it be that pre-humans conquered all other threats and no longer needed the same mass and bone structure? How does increasing mental capacity to build tools and weapons play into this theory?
I read somewhere it’s to do with breeding. Much like dogs, they started as wolves and then after generations of breeding we have tons of breeds. In humanities case it comes down to love, most of us breed out of love and that in turn has changed our breed so to speak. And that’s the thing Alphas aren’t loving Betas are.
@@PaulJohnson-zv3hl Doesn't make sense at all. Women to this day are attracted to masculine imposing men, who one could describe as alphas. To the point when women would often pick alpha to make baby with and beta to be a husband, openly or through cheating. Besides, he said all domesticated animals developed reduced brain sizes, which very obviously is not what happened in human evolution, clearly debunked his own theory, I was surprised Lex didn't pick on it. Also, males getting best food is the case with all animals that have alpha males, from apes to lions. Hyenas on the other hand are matriarchal and don't have same culture. So he again debunked his own theory.
@@PaulJohnson-zv3hl Evolution takes the path of leastresistance. after getting rid of all the threats to humanity and growing the intelect peace was more efficient than war.
@@AG-ig8uf I used to work at a place that mostly hired women, I was the only guy there for a while and I ended up being forced to listen to women talk endlessly all day. This women only love alpha's meme is a total meme. Women actually have a wide variety of tastes in men, and the best word I'd use to describe women's taste in men overall is banned from this website (starts with an R, synonym for silly). Girls would often act offended by any guy who came in with big muscles and they'd bad mouth him after he left, like they felt he was a show off and say looked too mean, and then when guys walked in with skinny jeans or meme haircuts or any sort of expensive they'd all get excited and gush over him after he was gone. Honestly their taste was literally opposite mine, they liked every guy I thought looked like a total c-*-ck and every guy that looked tough or cool they had no interest in or actively disliked.
I think that the reduction of hyper-masculine traits allowed for humans to get along better with eachother and cooperate in larger groups cohesively. That is going to be an obvious advantage in warfare.
I've always theorized that there are 2 types of alpha males, 1 being violent , aggressive narcissistic and the other being cunning, intelligent.
I’d say narcissism is at least as prevalent amongst the egg heads, probably more so than amongst meat heads, honestly. Strong men always know that there is someone out there stronger than they are, and that they will weaken over time. The smart always think they’re better than you, and never see a scenario where they aren’t.
This is a terminological problem, not really an objection to what Wrangham said. He is using "Alpha male" to refer to those members who individually dominate the tribe through aggressive means (which is what is observed in other primates). The moment an Alpha male begins to make concessions for strategic purposes, or by realizing he achieves more through cooperation, he's not Alpha any longer. Nowadays, the difference between "Alpha" and "Beta" males is used in a non-scientific sense to describe a person with higher social status in a group (eg., the pick-up community). But this carries the risk of becoming an ambiguous distinction because then you can just say that whoever gets the prize in the end is Alpha, regardless of the tactic he used. The last man standing must be Alpha, otherwise he wouln't be the last man standing. But this is just a loose way of talking, not really an explanation.
@@chillie000 but a small alpha will be lethal! Use guns, knives, weapons. Use many means to get the job done? Maybe?
@@mod.s.7921 I'm curious what you think is the defining characteristic of the Alpha male in the way it is used to analyse today's society and leaders? The characteristics you point out are a good summary of what a leader is. But the capacity to use them in order to dominate others (eg. through benevolence and debt, like you mention), is that what makes an Alpha an Alpha? Just curious to know what you think about it.
My suggestion is that it only makes sense to talk about Alpha and Beta in a closed social group, ie, one like a tribe or pack, and generally in a survivalist environment. Nowadays, so-called Betas don't need to subjugate their will to any Alpha in so far as they can leave the group they are in (family, friends, job) and seek another where dominance doesn't exist in the same way.
@@mod.s.7921 First of all, when I identified Alpha males as those who won the prize, I was making an objection to how the term is used sometimes. It is taken from its scientific context, in which it is part of a linguistic system which includes many other terms and all are more or less defined with precision, to contexts where the language is used more loosely and many times basic dichotomies are played out - the winners vs the loosers, the strong vs the weak, the top 1% vs the bottom 99%, the alphas vs the betas. In other words, to use the terms for general social analysis is always to use it somewhat loosely (unless one decides to redefine it for this purpose). So some questions arise which are meaningless, or lead to no discussions, like "Is Donald Trump an Alpha male or a Beta male?" or "Is Fascism an Alpha male rulling system and Democracy a Beta male rulling system?". Well, it depends on how you choose to use the terms. Donald Trump is an insecure person at heart who bullies his way through other people and cheats the value system he is in so as to benefit himself. Does that make him a Beta male who strategically fools his Alpha peers, like Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, to win an election, or does his success show his intelligence and proves he's in fact the real Alpha in today's society? It is an empty discussion. Is Democracy a system of governance created by Betas to keep Alphas at bay? Or is it the golden age of Alpha maleness when individuals can have more power (=wealth) than entire countries? Again, it depends how you define the terms.
The way I sometimes read people using the terms Alpha and Beta seems to me to stem from a deep seated resentment towards assertions of power, for example, in the school yard. There is a history of how the new digital revolution was carried out by "nerds" and "geeks", basically smart kids who loved computers and science but because they didn't conform to social norms in school, they were stigmatized by other kids, especially Alphas. Now, with the models of society being virtually all nerds, there is a sense of justice having been made. That is the story this clip tells as well, by affirming modern society is the result of the defeat of the Alpha male. In this story, the meaning of Alpha male is "the immoral aggressor" against the "unjust victim" who gets his revenge through being cunning.
When it comes to analysing geopolitical relations using these concepts in order to explain war, for example, and using the idea that countries are like tribes and their leaders are like two Alpha males asserting their power, it is hard to see for me how this can be useful too. But perhaps I'm wrong. Unlike in primitive times, where clashes of tribes were isolated incidents that had an immediate effect (obtaining resources, or asserting authority over a piece of land), in geopolitics, countries form alliances and networks of cooperation through international organizations. There are many interests at play which contribute to the dynamic of power and a war is never a simple act of assertion or conquest, but a complex event.
If I had to guess, and completely contradict what I have just said, I would say what defines someone as Alpha across societies is the capacity to set values for a given group of people. That is, the Alpha male is the embodiment of values which can be followed by others, and which are followed by others, whether the Alpha male wants it or not, and so they set the behavioural trends of the group he influences. So, to take an obvious example, Trump is a winner, but has no values. No one can follow his example, because he sets none. What he does, no one else can do, because he is just the pure expression of his individual interests and desires. Musk is an Alpha, he embodies the values of hard work, commitment to learning, no excuses type of approach, and some kind of undefined capitalist libertarianism. Chomsky is an Alpha, Ghandi is an Alpha, Madre Teresa is an Alpha, etc. On this definition, the Alpha characteristics are not moral. So just because a politician is corrupt, doesn't mean he is a Beta. A thief or a liar can all be Alpha males, because what matters is whether they represent values and influence behaviours, not the goodness or badness of these values or behaviours. So you have so many druglords, gangsters, politicians, CEOs who are Alpha. Another thing is that the capacity to set values and behaviours doesn't need to come from an "official" position of power. Often it explains why the male ends up in a position of power. In primitive societies, this position was probably always equal to being the figure head as well. The Alpha male was the most obviously powerful individual, because power was never covert and disguised. The absence of presence was seen as weakness and so a loss of power. But this is different in today's society.
Sorry for the long reply.
All of these talks are very interesting. Thank you .
Lex needs to stop using the words beautiful and love
Nope I love it and he is beautiful
It's like every post in this comment section is defining alpha/beta on its own. Which implies these terms are meaningless. Not to mention cringy af.
When you find out it's scientifically impossible to be an alpha human,
Feels bad man
Forever beta
We’re a species of bitch boys
Not impossible to exhibit reactionary violence though. My step dad hit me for scratching my eye with the incorrect finger. Or me becoming angry when my cat hisses at me. Neither situation was fruitful as the defensive reactions weren’t helpful. Likely only helpful in the context of actual survival.
BEEYTAH
Y’all are such beta males that you let a beta male convince you that you can’t be alpha and still use the alpha/beta dichotomy to compensate for your insecurities while exposing how much of a pansy a man in this day and age can be. This generation is fucked
Shoot up some testosterone
You'll get some crazy.
It’s seems almost obvious that the Neanderthals were wiped out violently by humans. I always wondered why academics don’t want to even entertain that idea. Human violence can be brutal whether today or in history.
Because that's not what happened
@@XplusX12345678 based on the fact that our two species mixed... They went extinct because their populations stayed in isolated pockets and they became inbred just like the last wooly mammoths. Homo sapiens survived when the other humans races died out because our communication skills and the fact that we migrated to every part of the planet. Most Neanderthals had already died out by the time they made contact with us
@@XplusX12345678 doesn't support my conclusion? Archaeological evidence points to the fact that when humans arrived in Europe and Asia Neanderthals were already gone you need to catch up not to mention major climate change lots of animals were dying out they went extinct for the exact reason I told you they simply had too small of a population that wasn't humans fault
@@XplusX12345678 no coincidence major climate change was already happening before human arrival an already cold environment got even colder many species like cave bears and cave hyenas also went extinct around the fall of Neanderthals among many others and they are in our genome because they weren't completely wiped out when humans arrived 20 thousand years ago smaller populations hung on in pockets close to the Mediterranean isolated just like the last wooly mammoths blaming literally every extinction on homo sapiens is intellectually and morally dishonest and wrong there were many other human species alive they died out for lots of reasons we know and don't know it's very hard for animals to adapt when the environment around them rapidly becomes different
Evolutionary psychology at its finest, simplistic and half thought. Chimpanzees have the EXACT same system.
Exact same eh??? And you know this how?
The kind of peace and growth we are experiencing now globally, Is it a silence before the storm?
I don’t think there is peace globally. Large portions of africa have been in a constant state of war since the Rhodesian civil war. There are people still alive in Bosnia and Herzegovina who remember the genocide the Russians waged (I got mistaken for a Russian once, crazy stuff). Any Polish soldier will talk to you about skirmishes with Russian actors on the border, constantly. Not to mention the 2 decades of war in the Middle East. Increased presence of non-state, violent actors in the pacific islands.
This is stupid, it’s not always a group of betas that beat a bully alpha, sometimes it’s a righteous stronger alpha that beats the bully alpha.
Firearms made all the difference. Up the Tudor times, noblemen were warlords, & the strongest & most aggressive won battles. Personal firearms allowed less violent men to kill them off in battle, completely changing society. In a matter of a century, Europe had the Renaissance then Enlightenment, & then democracy.
Personal firearms don’t stop armies. Cooperation and the nuclear family created our advanced society. The fact that we don’t need firearms is why we progressed. If everybody is armed and violent, then families are not raising their kids correctly. Violent males come from broken families. If families don’t raise their kids, society comes to a violent end.
Amazing video as usual!
Alphas and Betas in fact do not exist.
Who thinks they exist should maybe watch some more normal takes on
Manlyness?
Violence comes from the belief and feeling to be a separate self.
Isn't that the same as saying we became what we are because we learned how to do revolutions against tyrants?
Totally, everytime someone got too authoritarian everybody gathered and beat the shit out of him.
I am not convinced, everywhere we see only alpha dominating, films, politics, corporates, etc., even in our work place, people naturally obey a dominant person instead of opting for consensus.
But Joe said it's because we started eating meat?
A theory that once humans used fire to tenderize meat and passed that knowledge. we know longer “needed” large jaw muscles thus giving way to more space in our craniums - giving way to larger brains
edit - obviously these physical changes wouldnt happen overnight but take many many years and generations
Debunked
If being a beta male means not being reactionary and violent then so be it. True leaders are compassionate but knows the boundaries of the tolerance paradox
Clan of the Cave Bear. Very well researched paleo-history fiction.
What do you mean?
Weapons changed everything. You better not take someones food or female when he can cut your throat while you sleep.
You guys realize there's no reality in alpha/beta males. This is one of the worst misconceptions that never dies.
That's obviously a false statement
@@jaradwinklepleck1769 you serious you research lacking bum?
@@jaradwinklepleck1769 Alphas and betas don't exist in the human species.
Sounds like something a beta would say
Of course they do.
There’s a small percentage of men who get a lions share of the resources I.e money, wealth, assets, many high quality mates.
And then there’s a large percentage of men who get shitty jobs they hate, ugly mates/no mates, no money/debt, shit lives, etc.
The 1% and the 99%. It’s the modern day version of the leader of a tribe who has an abundance of everything he wants. An alpha/leader
That coffee mug is rad. Where did you get?
i think it's a better change, though. if all males were alpha males, we wpuld live 1 mile or more apart from each other! every encounter could and would result in a fight, and no society could be built in that condition
Ken Rex McElroy, a modern day alpha ,killed by an unknown group of terrorized citizens in Skidmore ,Missouri 40 yrs ago.
When this happened to me at work when I was put in charge, I knew what the Betas we're doing. I just didn't know it was a genetic reaction.
So as a primate were you trying to violently dominate and kill them???
Ahahahahhahahaha
This guy is so beta he had to learn language in order to cooperate with others to survive
bonobos are primates and aren't aggressive at all.. Idk evolution seems like it could have millions of different factors not just "Beta males taking down the alpha." Our tendencies to form large communities, work together, use language could have played apart of lowering our aggression.
Not really because it parallels modern society, we have huge capacity for violence but lock up Alpha males who try to get to the top with violence - the rules are written by the Beta males who came together to write the laws etc and set the way of the land - or start wars.. etc.. - bonobos aren't a good comparison, I've read they grew up in radically different environments with few predators, less competition and less capacity for violence.
We have violence in us as an evolutionary trait.
If the beta takes over, doesn't that make them the alpha by definition?
I don’t think making a coalition of betas make them alpha
@@JBT-bw8sh I guess it depends on the definition of what an alpha is. Amazingly there isn't a consensus on the internet 🤣
Bill Gates?
Totem and Taboo by Sigmund Freud was an spot on intuition.
Can you please elaborate ?
@@primary5050
it is a beautifully written book, i strongly recommend the reading.
It is one of the most anthropological texts by Freud where he creates and uses mythological narrative to make his point.
He tells about and fictional primordial father, the first father that ever existed that has no one before him. This father subjugates everyone to his will, copulates with every female exclusively, spouses or daughters in total disregard for any law, norm, or taboo. He does not die by age. All his sons have no access to the women and are subjugated and killed. The males flee from his oppression, and recognize themselves as brothers, plan to kill the primordial father to have access to the women. But there is a problem. In the absence of this mythic primordial father, who would avoid the perpetual vicious cycle of violent killing among men? So, they replace the primordial father with a totem, a symbolic father, the law in language who organize the sexual exchange in the tribe and the regular rites to purge the everlasting guilt for having killed him.
He created this myth as an illustration on how civilization is born not only through time but on how children replicate this process at their psychological development. And that text resonates extremely well with what is discussed in this video.
@@mltiago thank you for the well written description . Adding the book to my read list . Thanks again. ✌️✌️✌️
@@primary5050 You're welcome!
Sigma male over here, beta males could not take us down
Lmfao a self proclaimed ''sigma'' bad ass. You must be as rare as a shiney pokemon or something?
@@Mr-qt4xr exactly
Brilliant conversation
I would like to see solid evidence backing this claim and the claim stating that betas promote peace and prosperity. Also I would like to see evidence that proves the actuality of this categorization. By I guess that is to expect too much from a purely philosophical hypothetical context.
Also im pretty sure the entire idea of alpha and beta males is bullshit. The guy who came up with the concept later said he was wrong
Alfas in humans are the ones that change their environment for their own good. Betas just accept the environment. Its about inteligence, charisma and execution. Not violence.
damn. I though I would be viewing something interesting not the babblings of a woke man trying to apply wokeness to our evolution.
So basically society imposes group not the individual
How alpha are you if you get breed out of existence by beta bales?
I think it's because we like stories. We are drawn to fiction. We have always tended to band together because of a common belief created by a story.
Birth Of A Nation 40,000BC.🤣
Is this why I didn’t get in trouble for beating up the bully who punched me in the hallway? They saw me as the beta for getting bullied, but was I?
Alpha evolved into consensus, an ever changing plurality.
No alpha males?? What about Kings, Nobility, Rich people? I agree nowadays we don't have males threatening violence on other males, but that's a very modern thing.
Good point but Wrangham forgets that sapiens has stablished a "new set" of features that define their "new alphas". As a species, these new features set us apart from the more "natural" or "animal" ones, as size and pure brute force, usually combined with intensive agression. In this sense a "new alpha" can be defined nowadays by their intelligence, wealth, social skills and ability to produce art. However, female´s instinctive response to the traditional features of an alpha sapiens are still extremely strong.
Go to the gym beta
That “highly probable” bullshit pisses me off. If you don’t know it say it, if it’s a theory say it. It’s okay to be wrong. No one will discredit you.
His theory is very speculative, and it doesn't seem to fit with human nature. Is it really the beta males who take down alphas? Doesn't it tend to be other alphas who want their spot in the hierarchy?
Nope. Betas evolved intelligence for the purpose of overthrowing alphas. Alphas never had to evolve intelligence because raw physical power was always better...until it wasn't. Coalition building requires way more sophisticated mental ability: mind reading for example..
@@martinzarathustra8604 You can think that, but you can't know that. I just don't find this to be a plausible theory. It seems to be implying that at some early point there was a time where there were only aggressive. alphas, then betas came into the picture later. That doesn't seem to be consistent with how nature works, with how personalities work. What say you?
Yeah like what he’s saying makes sense if you don’t address how intelligent we are. I don’t think alpha and beta can be described by violence/physicality anymore. Is one more beta by realizing that outsmarting his opponent is a better strategy for winning? It must be a mindset thing or mental trait.
@@amirguri1335 Based on what evidence? His evidence is the biological record and what we know about the behaviors of early hominids. Now what exactly happened is unclear, but the evidence seems to indicate that alpha males don't really work in human species like they do in other animal species. Males in our species are highly competitive whereas in previous generations of hominids the alpha male established his rule and only those daring to take him on one on one would challenge him. This allowed for mostly stable rule, giving way to a new alpha when one presented itself. The other males generally accepted their lot, unless they were close in strength to the alpha they would not even attempt to challenge. In contrast to humans where alphas can be taken out easily.. Thomas Hobbes theorized this human dynamic brilliantly in his theory of equality. We are equal because any one of us can be killed in our sleep. Any one of us can be killed by the mob. No one, not even the strongest, is really strong enough against the right kind of intelligence. All one has to do is be able to manipulate the mob, to convince them, to REASON with them. These motivations are both our blessing and our curse. Males will constantly be looking for advantage, they will bide their time, use any trick in the book, betas can be FAR more resourceful than alphas because they do not come prepackaged with strength and good looks.. In other words, we evolved intelligence because it was rewarded with success and there is no amount of strength that can beat social control.
@@martinzarathustra8604 I appreciate your passionate response Martin. I still struggle greatly with this theory, though. If I have you right, it sounds like you're saying that a specific type of intellectual evolution happened within the human species, that this evolution only applies only to a specific subset of members in the species - the beta males, a term that is very loosely defined (which is another issue for me but I'll pass on that for now). Further, you're saying that the reason for the evolution was for the sole or main purpose of wrestling social control from the alpha males. If I have your position right I'll be happy enough. In brief response, though, what you're describing could also be and, to me, sounds like a consequence of the evolution of the human intellect and higher reasoning as a whole - which happened across the entire species, not just in beta males. Realizing the power of social control comes from our capacity to reason on higher levels, as Hobbes himself was doing. There are many other advantages that come from this capacity. Reason is the reason why we are the dominant species on the planet. I think it somewhat myopic to claim that we evolved higher reasoning for one sole purpose, having only to do with beta males.
But his argument does not explain the long human history of dictators and tyrants who rules and abused the rest of the population with impunity.
This guy does not understand what an alpha male is. An alpha male is not one that dominates solely through individual violence. An alpha male is the leader. As such, the alpha does not survive without a coalition of support. This guy is essentially woke. He has a problem with male aggression.
It’s about a long long time ago
You’re uneducated. What is alpha in nature?
Many of Cormac Mccarthy's books explore this theme although....he doesn't treat beta males as charitably as Evolutionary Biology apparently did.
"Beta males won..."
Beta males: *laughing
High-functioning sociopaths and not so well functioning sociopaths: *smirking
Where does Starscream fall on the spectrum?
@@Apocalymon In a future we hopefully will never have to witness.
You forgot the phycopaths
I don’t think this explanation takes into account humans advantage of reason and future planning which no other mamals display and therefore cannot be compared with. The Alpha for homosapiens is one that pushes the agenda of the group forward
However you can say that without this suppression of reactive violence that the capacity to think and plan ahead wouldn't have developed as quickly or the way that it did and that even with it, that progress as a species would be very slow.
You can see this play out even today. The loud obnoxious violent idiot who insists they're right and everyone else is wrong and everyone and everything that disagrees with them is trying to offend or suppress them and so they take any form of disagreement personally and thus make it their mission to eliminate it and vanquish it and assert and flex their social status as a means of proving themselves right.
Is that conducive to progress? Most definitely not xD
But you would constantly have squabbles and arguments like this in the past where the more calm and tempered individual would analyze the situation and come to a reasonable conclusion that runs counter to what the alpha male would believe or wants but the alpha male takes this as an attack on their social status and ego, so rather than take the advice which would have everyone be better off, they fight, main and kill that ape that thought rationally and dared to oppose them and their rule.
The alpha male is most definitely not going to be the brightest memeber of the group, even if he is trying to look out for the best interests of everyone, and his effectiveness and benefit to the group is greatly undermined if he reacts with primitive aggression to someone even conceiving a world view slightly different from their own, let alone saying they should hunt here instead of there tomorrow.
With this thinking in mind I do see ways on which this theory can engage with and address that problem.
We won? Where is my participation prize?
Society, and collaboration.
We humans are one wicked species for sure.
That's a pretty crude explanation, and applies for the past century or so. Methinks it has to do with feminization of culture rather than victorious coalition of betas.
He literally used the phrase 300,000 years ago. I understand I’m being literal, but you can’t be that vague and expect your point to really be made.
This example kills me. Homo sapiens is predicated on violence. Ask yourselves the following: If homo sapiens is innately internecine, then the species by its own accord would have gone into extinction as the Neanderthal and Denisovan. Homo sapiens proper, keyword proper, is a socialist species thus preference a communal society, I am my brothers' keeper, highlighted by mutual cooperation thus less violent prone. Homo sapiens and internecine as violence are unpaired words.
Anthropologists inform that the recent version of homo sapiens is more violent than the past version. What has happened historically recent that has reversed so dramatically the anthropological trend?