The Dark Side of Man

Rating:
Summary: Violence is Man's Original Sin Says the Good Doctor
Review: Because it reaches deep inside the dark soul of man, this is a book that has aroused a great deal of controversy. Michael Ghiglieri has tackled a very difficult subject - the origins of male violence. Emerging from the field of anthropology and evolutionary psychology is the argument that male violence is deeply entrenched, that it is part and parcel of being male, not largely due to social factors. This idea makes people uncomfortable because if violence is a largely immutable male characteristic, than utopian social schemes won't be able banish it, to throw it on the dust heap of history. The author is an anthropology professor who toiled as a field biologist in Africa and Asia, where he worked with chimpanzees, the most intelligent of the great apes and man's closest animal relation. This work with the great apes - once thought to be peaceful animals - has contributed to his conviction that violence - while varying by degree from individual to individual - is an immutable human trait as it is among the chimpanzees. Ghiglieri is an advocate of evolutionary psychology and believes that most traits make sense when viewed through the prism of reproduction. He argues that male violence is largely a reproductive strategy.
Ghiglieri begins by citing the ever-larger body of scientific evidence that indicates just how different men and women are and why their reproductive goals fundamentally diverge. Then, he begins to address the spectrum of male violence - warfare, genocide, warfare, murder and rape - and begins each chapter with real world examples before segueing into a recitation of his evidence as to which reproductive and biological imperatives are fulfilled by that behavior.
One of the most controversial chapters of the book is about rape. While campus feminists have repeated the mantra that "rape is about power, not about sex" so many times that it has become part of the conventional wisdom, others have long questioned this certainty from purely logical viewpoint. After all, in a rape, the victim is not simply subjugated and beaten, but sexually violated. Now, Ghiglieri explains rape in the animal world and how it fulfills a mating strategy and then methodically marshals his evidence to prove that it is a disturbing but entrenched human mating strategy as well.
In a bold move, the author has a number of prescriptions - strategies - that he advocates in order to minimize the effects of male violence. In addition to our violent traits, he cites mankind's attributes, his ability to cooperate, to channel behavior, which will allow us to cope with man's innate aggression. Ghiglieri wants us to be appropriately tough on criminals, to eliminate those who are most violent, to encourage self-defense and advocates a criminal justice system that is almost biblical in its sense of retribution. According to him, these actions would reduce the damage done my male violence as they channel the protective strategies that are innate to me.
So, to Ghiglieri, there is no font of primitive happiness, no ideal society that so many anthropologists have sought. Man simply has a dark, aggressive side that is programmed into his DNA and so while it may be challenged, it can never be eliminated. With its disturbing anecdotal examples of male violence and its conviction that male aggression is an immutable reality, "The Dark Side of Man" is a disturbing book, but instead of looking away from some dark questions, it addresses them head-on. While the outlook for the world will forever be grim if man's baser instincts are hard-wired into us, it is probably better to be realistic about them so that we can develop effective countermeasures.


Rating:
Summary: Lex Talionis leaves the World Blind
Review: Ghiglieri convincingly points out the parallels in human behavior found in primatology, focusing on the capacity for our closest genetic relatives, the chimps, to literally murder, rape, and go to war. Although I find the third part of his book, which is focused on finding appropriate responses to man's inherent biological capacity for violence to be rather polemical tripe, his anthropological look at what is often considered as merely a problem of socialization and environment is refreshing. His assertion that lex talionis, "eye for an eye" justice is an antidote for violent behavior within American society might better be encapsulated within another book. There are drawbacks to this approach that Ghiglieri doesn't examine, and might better be addressed by someone experienced in criminal psychology. Also, when comparing the American criminal justice system to systems in France and Saudi Arabia, it is best to entertain many hypotheses for the ostensive differences in recidivism, crime rates, and quality of life- surely the data is not so clear cut to always suggest a cause and effect relationship between the harshness of punishment and the subsequent levels of crime. And this isn't even to mention the prickly possibilities for human rights abuse, though certainly it is troubling to see criminals released back to society only to claim more victims. So in short, while it is no coincidence that men are the vast majority of violent offenders, and that the differing abilities of men to sire an infinite amount of offspring, in comparison to women being limited has left its traces on human psychology, facile answers aren't to be found. Calling to public opinion on the death penalty, as well as police departments, only demonstrates that indignation is a protective response to maintain reciprocal altruism in society- not that this means the death penalty will be effective in the age of megalopolises. Thus I don't see Ghiglieri's pronouncements on social policy to be as convincing as his empirical evidence to suggest that violence predates civilization and its taint- M. Mead be damned.

Rating:
Summary: A well written, thought provoking look at violence
Review: I highly recommend this objective, scientifically-grounded look at male violence. The book is filled with fascinating examples, anticdotes and statistics to support the author's hypothesis which often conflicts with society's traditional view of violence. Additionally, Dr. Ghiglieri's writing style is clear, concise and entertaining.

This book is a must read for anyone with a curious mind and desire to be part of a better future.

Rating:
Summary: not a nice way to hundle evolutionary biology.
Review: I
This book says that biology is solid science.Really?
Social biology ,ebolutionary biology,evolutionary psychology are very fragile science and have been abused for sexism,racism biological determinism,etc
And if one theory has the ring of the truth,it is possible to assert that that is truth,by using every fragile logic,biased indirect evidence .and the atmosphere(I myself have done so).
And considering such facts ,Scientists have to be humble.
But History repeats itself.
I'm not surprised that his theory sounds plausible to people who don't know the field well.I myself feel so about guns.
His tactic goes like this
When there are good data,he uses them perfectly and says a is --%,b is --% etc.And he doesnft note what unbiased people usually note.And maybe he doesnft know the field he looked down.
When there are controversial data or theories,he uses the part of data what are convenient for him( if he wants 'crime is not casused by the poor environment,'he sites only criminal's son tend to be a criminal ,and ignores the fact that criminal's son became criminal much less frequently when brought up by normal family.or goes like 'most authority agree with that'.or something like that.
And when there are obvious unconvinient facts ,data,construals or whatever ,he ignores that ,masks that.and instead uses ,illogical thinkings,personal quotations,and rare cases.and atmosphere.
For example,men kill men for pride and women love such dangerous,with low intelligence,and wanton vilonent guys.And it is an adoptation.according to him.
If men kill men, he earns the reputation that he is violent and he robs the resource easily when in need.And as an evidence he cites Yanomamo tribe's case or mafia and a woman who was attracted by the mafia.He uses this logic again and again,some rich men also do rape ,so most men...some rich men also do kill ,so most men...Yanomamo tribe and mafia are so,so most men...
But with evolutionary logic anyone can conclude opposite theory.
As he says , ,in evolutionary history,men act in union and if he breaks the harmony,he gets the penalty(this holds true to most societies.).Or maybe gets the revenge.violent?so what ? human got the equalizer(the authority also says eequalizerf put the leader in different position) .Or maybe he was excluded from the community.
And so how about women? according to the social psychology's experiment,when men are picked a fight by another man,this kind of violent reaction was very unpopular to women.
and if you teachs women that one man is criminal his appearance appeal became lower.And criminal type face was unpopular to women.
And what kind of men ,do women hate most?according to Bass's reserch all over the world he also quoted,typical killer type men ,violent ,low inteligence and can't constrain him,is one of the worst types.You're surprised? but not so surprised if you think well.
And the time that physical power counts much ends before the age of 10 in our world.
So typical killing was not adopted action ,or say worst action .So ?what happened ?human evolves the frontal cortex and among many of the human's brains high noble abilities (which are all very pppular to women,men,human and as a result are chosen),'brake is included .and no matter men became angry ,normal men don't kill and in a well contorolled society ,to meet a killer is hundreds times more difficult than many obviously unadopted actions.
And as a whole Killers have problems in frontal cortex and mineral balance.Which indicate they just couldn't express the abilities they have in themselves and not completely non problem guys as he try to indicate.

And to solve the problem ,we have to fully blossom our noble abilities,not eeye for eyef.
Ob course this is also very biased.
But this is evolutionary biology.I can fabricate another theories if his tactic is allowed.
He said one friend pointed out 1000 places to correct.. But still there were another 1000 to improve.Itfs not an exaggeration.I was tired to read this because of this.
And I reccomend to all the readers that they don't swallow all the stories written in this book.Though some of them are interesting ,They may be just his personal briefs,or ideologies..What kind of ideology he has ,I donft have to say..
Though I canft say his theories(or maybe any other theories) were definitely wrong.The fact that he has to use assertive ways again and again indicats his were in many cases unlikely.

Rating:
Summary: Superb
Review: Michael's book is grounded in rock solid science and I just love this book. If you want to understand huMAN nature, this is one of the fine starting points. The subject matter is incredibly controversial and he handles it very well. Rape, violence, genocide, war...all the stuff men are good at are discussed here. The author's reasoning is compelling. This book is among my 100 all time favorites. Buy it, read it...

Rating:
Summary: Worthwhile in spite of being unbalanced
Review: Overall, I think this book is very worthwhile because it does help put human violence into some perspective in nature. "Dark Side" features a reasonably convincing argument that some fundamental kinds of violence persist because they served survival needs in our evolutionary past. That is, violence toward each other is not something that humans invented or which we lapse into solely because we weren't spanked enough as children. Orangutans commit rape, male porpoises gang up on females to block her escape and inseminate her, chimps conduct territorial raids and even wage war. Reading this book, you get the feeling that you can make a little more sense out of the latest headlines about "senseless" violence.

The imbalance of this view comes in because the theme of the book focuses on the roots of violent behavior, and ignores both the equally compelling evidence for altruistic behavior in nature and the evidence of human capacity to regulate their own behavior in various ways, rather than responding in a stereotyped way to impulses.

Another weakness is that the book relates animal and human violence in an overly simplistic way at times, such as equating Orangutan rape with human rape. The motives, opportunities, and circumstances of human violence appear far more varied than among animals in these kinds of crimes. It's easy to believe that the thinking and feeling patterns that lead to violent behavior are much more elaborate and have many more variables than in the animals examined by the author. The comparison of the violent acts of the different species can only go so far.

People who really like this may also enjoy the similar but more comprehensive and more scholarly (i.e. more difficult to read) "Demonic Males:Apes and the Origins of Human Violence" by Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson.

Rating:
Summary: Worthwhile in spite of being unbalanced
Review: Overall, I think this book is very worthwhile because it does help put human violence into some perspective in nature. "Dark Side" features a reasonably convincing argument that some fundamental kinds of violence persist because they served survival needs in our evolutionary past. That is, violence toward each other is not something that humans invented or which we lapse into solely because we weren't spanked enough as children. Orangutans commit rape, male porpoises gang up on females to block her escape and inseminate her, chimps conduct territorial raids and even wage war. Reading this book, you get the feeling that you can make a little more sense out of the latest headlines about "senseless" violence.

The imbalance of this view comes in because the theme of the book focuses on the roots of violent behavior, and ignores both the equally compelling evidence for altruistic behavior in nature and the evidence of human capacity to regulate their own behavior in various ways, rather than responding in a stereotyped way to impulses.

Another weakness is that the book relates animal and human violence in an overly simplistic way at times, such as equating Orangutan rape with human rape. The motives, opportunities, and circumstances of human violence appear far more varied than among animals in these kinds of crimes. It's easy to believe that the thinking and feeling patterns that lead to violent behavior are much more elaborate and have many more variables than in the animals examined by the author. The comparison of the violent acts of the different species can only go so far.

People who really like this may also enjoy the similar but more comprehensive and more scholarly (i.e. more difficult to read) "Demonic Males:Apes and the Origins of Human Violence" by Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson.

Rating:
Summary: Anthropology versus Sociology
Review: The author has spent many years studying primate societies. His scientific data is both convincing and chilling. Violence is biological. He is less convincing when he delves into sociology, attempting to relate his primate studies to human society. Especially shocking is his view of American prisons as a sort of ineffective genteel resort so attractive that men will even murder to get (back) into them. Amnesty International considers the American prison system to be among the worst in the world for cruelty and harshness, on a par with those of Turkey and Iran. Our high recidivism rate has nothing to do with the excellence of our prisons, but with their ineffective use of cruelty as punishment, without any interest in rehabilitation, a word which has all but disappeared from "correctional" rhetoric. The author should have read Dr. James Gilligan's book "Violence."

Rating:
Summary: Anthropology versus Sociology
Review: The author has spent many years studying primate societies. His scientific data is both convincing and chilling. Violence is biological. He is less convincing when he delves into sociology, attempting to relate his primate studies to human society. Especially shocking is his view of American prisons as a sort of ineffective genteel resort so attractive that men will even murder to get (back) into them. Amnesty International considers the American prison system to be among the worst in the world for cruelty and harshness, on a par with those of Turkey and Iran. Our high recidivism rate has nothing to do with the excellence of our prisons, but with their ineffective use of cruelty as punishment, without any interest in rehabilitation, a word which has all but disappeared from "correctional" rhetoric. The author should have read Dr. James Gilligan's book "Violence."

Rating:
Summary: We?re Evolved, but not THAT Evolved
Review: Violence is right up there with sex as a subject of universal and apparently unslakable interest. And if the two are linked, how much more fascinating-and here's a whole book that purports to be about sex and violence, with chapter titles like "Rape", "Murder", "War", and "Genocide".

Alas for the devotees of Real Crime, this book looks at the subject more clinically, but that makes it more interesting, really. If you actually look at the way men behave in certain extreme circumstances, rather than sneaking sidelong glances and then looking away, and talk straightforwardly about what you see, you can come to some surprising and useful conclusions.

I should say that the conclusions are surprising to academic theorists of criminal behavior, but not so surprising to the average person. The average person has always felt that rape is about sex rather than domination, and that if you want to discourage mugging, just let a few victims shoot a few muggers. The average person thinks that war, too, is mostly about ganging up to try and take something that belongs to someone else, and getting into a fight. But this is a book that comes to such commonsense conclusions in a way that should also pass muster with the theoreticians.

However, a book that talks about extremely antisocial behavior as being linked to one particular sex is going to have tough sledding these days. Furthermore, if it embraces the insights and results of human evolutionary psychology it is going to alienate religious fundamentalists as well as swatches of others of the "blank slate" school of human mental development.

Still with me? Well, the book is quite good, and to this reader at least, offered the surprising insights of a couple of paragraphs back. Perhaps too many years of hearing about the Patriarchy and its strategies of domination has kept me from thinking straight about why men do what they do, from flakking junk bonds to building bridges to robbing banks. Mostly, deep down, they do what they do to get women. Not to oppress them, or dominate them, or enslave them in the kitchen, but to have sex with them. Ghiglieri is an anthropologist, and his field studies (of chimps in particular) have given him a detachment that he applies to his own species. He starts with ideological biases, of course, but apparently also an intellectual honesty that lets the data speak to him and change his mind.

He paints a grim picture, but rather than throw up his hands at the intractability of violent behavior, Ghighieri believes that we have the intelligence and, as important, certain countervailing behaviors-the instincts for cooperating and for monitoring cheating-to enable us to contain and channel the always latent violence in our natures. Society foils our impulses in this direction right now (in particular the criminal justice system does), but need not.

So I recommend this book. It's a good read, with statistics but also with stories, and its conclusions do not get out too far ahead of its numbers. (Stats on human behavior, of course, are almost always shaky!). And it will teach you some things you didn't know about chimpanzees, too.