@spyman I believe that you are addressing me, since I was the person you made the argument you appear to be replying to.

I am not aware of credible sources making the same claims that I do. For that matter, I am not aware of non-credible sources making the same claims, as it is my belief and I have not yet decided to research to see whether or not anyone within mainstream psychology or sociology is having similar ideas.

I may talk pretty, but I'm a junior college dropout and I make no claims to being an expert in this or any other field. My arguments are based on my own personal observations, and what I can infer from those scientific studies I have had the good fortune to stumble across and the ability to comprehend.

I rely upon my own logic and my own rhetorical skills to make my arguments. Asking me for a "credible source" is nothing more than asking me to find someone else who is making the same arguments, and then relying upon them.

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

@Chrispminis "Perhaps we have different definitions of authority. It seems as though you define authority based around violence. Perhaps I'm being colloquial, but I see authority as far more faceted than such."

Broader, I would say, You include in your examples of authority items that I would describe as examples of influence. Your parents have authority over you, depending upon your legal status, either because they can withhold support from you or because they can use the government to enforce your compliance. The respect and obedience you pay to them as a dutiful son are matters of influence.

The situation is similar concerning religious figures. With the exception of subordinate members of their own religious organization, they do not have authority over anyone. Their influence, however, depends largely upon not only their position in the religious hierarchy, but their public image and the amount of respect they command from believers and nonbelievers alike.

For example, I would argue that the President of the United States of America has far more authority than the Pope, but the Pope has far more influence.

I'd also argue that between the two, influence is a more powerful tool. It is far easier to wield influence to gain authority than it is to wield authority to gain influence.

"Other people who I might gain fantastically from by co-operation will be much more hesitant to co-operate with me if I've assaulted and exploited previous "partners"."

This largely depends on whether or not you broke social expectations to achieve those assaults and exploitations. Being trusted has far more to do with behaving according to expectations than it does with refraining from victimizing others.

"Clearly more derangement? I simply don't think that's true. It may be that the only violence that happens today is because of derangement, but that does not mean there was less deranged violence in the past."

I do believe that violence that is not motivated by material gain has increased considerably within the last century. School shootings, sporting event and concert rioting, and random assaults seem to be relatively recent phenonema. While the last would have parallels in such charming activities as "tilting the lion", I'm willing to bet that such activities are more widespread in recent years.

"So by this reasoning would you expect sports players, both professional and amateur, to commit less violent crime? This is a testable claim and might be interesting for a psychology major."

Indeed. I'd like to see the results of such a study. On the other hand, having a greater-than-average need for such activity-- whether by nature or nurture-- could also explain the drive to succeed in sports, which would skew the results.

I'm not sure how to properly study this.

"Besides which, if we've identified sports as a viable substitute, then why can't we get along without violence and savagery which was the original proposition with which you seemed to take some issue?"

Well, there is still the matter of limited resources and the fact that every position in the social hierarchy is relative. This would impose some practical limitation on just how much violence within society can decline.

But if it is possible, I would like to see violent sports-- and other formalized outlets-- replace random, lethal displays of force.

@Korymyr the Rat thanks for replying, I think that you and Draugnar were making similar points, so I might have mixed your arguments up.
It is an interesting idea that the lack of violence in society contributes to depression. I can't say that at this stage I agree as it strikes me as unlikely but that doesn't mean it the idea is false.
Credibility is not entirely in the eye of the beholder, there is still such as thing as empirical evidence and sound reasoning. If everything speaks for a proposition and nothing against it is most likely to be true.
Personally I am happier with less violence in my life. Or at least I think I am.

Somehow I'm not suprised.

rofl.

Next time be sure to learn kung-fu, so that you can chop trees with bare hands!

About Rugby...yes it is violent, but it's hardly a 'European' sport. Only the British isles nations, France and Italy play it in any serious sense. That's less than a third of Europe. As for rampant teenagers in 'England' (implying that it is a unique English problem, rather than a British one) I would dispute it is any worse than many other countries, including the USA. I would especially dispute such claims if they were coming from someone who didn't live in the UK, as I do.

"@Chrisp: What is your degree in exactly? Oh wait, your still in High School. Take a few colege-level psych classes (or minor in it like I did) and see if your view isn't changed. As far as Europe goes, they just have a different way of venting. It's called rugby! It's an even more violent sport than American Football or Hockey. No pads and if your head is between the other players foot and the ball, oh well...

Oh, and Europe has people who blow up entire trains and the tube and such. They also have a real problem with their teens in England right now. Something about teens running around the streets after dark acting like animals, sexually and physically assaulting adults..."

Well, if you must know, I'm a freshman at McGill University, probably (I might switch) majoring in Neuroscience and minoring in Economics. While I do have a pretty heavy amateur interest in neuroscience I wouldn't claim that what I'm saying is truth. That's why I'm debating... I'm not going to claim my intro psych courses have given me insight into the issue and so thus ends the argument. Most of what I'm saying probably comes from personal experience and beliefs, and I would say that your opinion is probably similarly based. If you would like to pull up some scientific papers that support your argument, feel free to do so.

It's been mentioned, but rugby isn't that widespread in Europe. Also I would say the chav phenomenon is over reported, but I couldn't say for sure. Regardless, it hardly proves, and only vaguely supports the idea that violence is an inherent psychological need. You're ignoring the stunning majority of people who aren't violent and even a majority of people who engage in similar activities to those that do go postal.

@Korimyr, I like this latest post less than your last because I feel you didn't really address my more important points.

You didn't really address my example of deferring to the authority of more experienced, knowledgeable, or skilled persons, which I thought was the strongest part of that paragraph. In addition, I'm not sure I would make such a distinction between authority and influence. Both are the power to influence the actions of others. If the threat of violence is the fundamental idea behind authority then why would we not expect the army to be the authority and not the president? Also I would say my parents calling upon the government to enforce my compliance is the least of my reasons for giving them authority over me, and not just because I'm 18 and not legally bound. I do not actually fear that my parents will stop supporting me... I rather give them authority because I know they support me and also I defer to the fact that they have more experience than I do and also have my wellbeing in mind.

"This largely depends on whether or not you broke social expectations to achieve those assaults and exploitations. Being trusted has far more to do with behaving according to expectations than it does with refraining from victimizing others."

Ok, agreed... but that part was really besides the point. I was saying that it wasn't the understanding that both partners have the capability to harm each other that allowed us to co-operate, I was saying it was the understanding that we each have something to offer to the other and would both mutually benefit from co-operation, and then by proxy we would suspend violence for the sake of greasing the gears of co-operation.

"I do believe that violence that is not motivated by material gain has increased considerably within the last century. School shootings, sporting event and concert rioting, and random assaults seem to be relatively recent phenonema. While the last would have parallels in such charming activities as "tilting the lion", I'm willing to bet that such activities are more widespread in recent years."

Perhaps it has increased the lethality of such incidents, but that is because of heightened technology and not because of repressed violent tendencies. If you look at history I think you'll find that violence without material gain in mind is quite common... Religious stonings, racist lynch mobs, witch burnings, honour killings, revenge killings, etc. There are no real truly random acts of killing, it is usually motivated by bullying, abuse at home, mental instability, attention seeking, etc. I would say that the incidence for such incidents has stayed the same or decreased in modern times, but that they are less diluted by commoner acts of violence, and they are certainly far more reported in our age of media. Violence is still common in poorer countries and poorer areas, indicating that violence is a tool, not a need. School shootings still remain a near statistically insignificant threat and to think that only a few people out of 300 million are mentally unstable or abused enough to perpetuate a crime like that is clearly not an indicator that violence is a psychological need, it's more support for how little violence we truly have in modern society.

I more or less agree with you on the rest and I have to get to class now. =)

@Hereward - The issue was a claim that Europe was less violent than the US. I was pointing out that the claim was false. I agree there is just as much teen violence in the US, although much of it seems to be urban and not rural. Country boys here smoke too much pot to get too violent. </sarcasm>

In the states, our violent crimes come from our inner cities, more often than not. Our suburbs and rural areas have more for the kids to do so they tend to stay out of trouble. But from what I've read (and this is just getting it from the news which I know is in the business of selling papers or advertising), England has a problem with gangs of kids just acting out because they have nothing better to do. This supports the view that we have violent tendencies and finding a means to be actively constructive reduces our urge to be destructive.

@Chrisp: I thought you were still in HS. If you are in college, my apologies for that. The shooting range actually is violent. If you ever fire a handgun, you'll experience just how violent. It's not like the "pop" guns they use in the movies. Fire a real round at a target, feel the kick of the weapon, get the thrill when you finally get your first bullseye. It's much like hunting, and there is no arguing that hunting is violent. You kill an animal with overwhelming force. At the range, you "kill" the silhouette with a chest or head shot (I go for the head). all the while, you are trying to maintain a steady hand and sharp eye while the adrenaline rushes through your veins.

Now, Tai Chi is definitely NON-violent. As I said, I normally follow an adrenaline fueled session at the range with a workout and/or a Tai Chi session. If I had to give one or the other up, I think I'd give up the shooting range as Tai Chi does more for me in the long run, and I can always let my aggression out on the bag at the Y.

Actually, Draugnar, now that you mention it, I have fired a handgun. My dad hunts in Newfoundland and he's taking me to the shooting range a couple of times when I was younger. Most of the time I shot his hunting rifle, but I did get to try a few rounds of another guy's revolver. It looked pretty old and whenever I shot I got sprayed in the face by gunpowder. The kick was pretty frightening, and I had the most atrocious aim. The rifle felt far more comfortable and I could actually aim with it. My Dad took me bear hunting once, I think around a year ago, but no shots were fired. The only black bear we saw wasn't in his licensed area. I have killed chickens with a bow and arrows though, though I found the idea to be pretty repulsive.

@Chrispminis "You didn't really address my example of deferring to the authority of more experienced, knowledgeable, or skilled persons, which I thought was the strongest part of that paragraph."

I did address that. I may not have called it out explicitly, but I addressed it. That is not authority, that is influence-- because there is no coercive pressure for people to follow the suggestions of experts, unless ordered to do so by people capable of using force.

"In addition, I'm not sure I would make such a distinction between authority and influence. Both are the power to influence the actions of others."

Yes, but they work differently. You cannot have a government that operates by influence, or at least not by influence alone.

"If the threat of violence is the fundamental idea behind authority then why would we not expect the army to be the authority and not the president?"

Because the President has authority over the Army. The Army follows the commands of the Generals, and should any one General, or nearly any group of Generals, refuse the President's orders, he can order-- with the expectation of compliance-- the other Generals to use force against them. It would take insurrection on the part of a staggering number of individuals, all with decades of conditioning to uphold the President's authority, in order to strip him of that power.

Likewise, it is highly doubtful that a judge will ever personally assault you-- but it is the stroke of his pen that authorizes the police to detain you, and to use whatever force is necessary to compel your compliance.

All further points, we are either in agreement or I have nothing further to add to the discussion at this time. You make a compelling point re: "random" violence, and it is a matter I will have to consider.

Alright, then at this point I would say that authority simply falls under the umbrella of influence in general. What you call influence, is what I would generally call authority. I suspected we had different definitions of the word authority, and correct me if I'm wrong but you almost define authority around violence, and I can't exactly argue against tautology.

I will agree with you that government is based around a monopoly of violence, because that is one of it's most essential roles. However, if I followed your definitions of authority and influence I would say influence is that far more powerful and relevant of the two.

I do not think that a monopoly on violence is either necessary, desirable, or possible. Even when taking into account that government cannot be in all places at all times, every government on the planet maintains at least some distinction of legitimate civilian violence.

And if you want to say that authority is merely a subset of influence, I won't argue. I certainly agree that it is the more important of the two.

Well somehow we've funnelled ourselves into agreement. =)