Humans less likeable with modern language

[rainforests1]

From what I can tell on sports and music boards I've posted on, immaturity, arrogance, and dishonesty are problems many people have. My own experience tells me anger problems as well. All big turn-offs to me. It's possible early humans had anger problems, but with their much less sophisticated language the other problems are less likely. Modern language has its advantages but I'd say the drawbacks are greater. I have a feeling I would find early humans much more likeable than modern humans and language is a big factor. Does anyone feel this way?

 

[beancounter]

IMO language is irrelevant to people being nice or not. The difference between now and then is the Internet. People feel more free to be jerks if they can remain anonymous.

 

[yakherder]

Anger, simply defined as the rational portion of your brain giving full control to the more primitive, intuitive side of the brain while simultaneously pumping your blood full of adrenaline in preparation for a potential physical confrontation, is now mostly obsolete. They certainly got angry, but it was more likely to be in response to a tangible threat, rather than a culturally constructed treat such as a disagreement over politics or dietary preference.

 

[rainforests1]

I see our cat Tarzan walking around limping at 15, and I saw the dog Pirate struggling with arthritis the last few years of her life. I see my father with his horrible diet who has not had any major health problems at 75. Even a simple phone call gets him angry sometimes. Most adult humans I've known have had anger problems, and most of it is very illogical. Some primates have problems with their emotions and I still find them very likeable because they don't have most of the other problems humans tend to have. There's obviously bigger issues I have but less important things like anger problems and dishonesty do matter as well.

 

[yakherder]

Dishonesty is a funny thing, and for me the intent of using it is more important than the dishonesty itself. The use of deception is a survival necessity for pretty much any living thing. Even plants, though not cognitive, have evolved forms of deception. As far as humans go, the problem comes when the intent of the deception is to cause some type of harm to me or someone I empathize with.

I don't tend to deal well with angry people either, though. I don't necessarily have anything against them for it, because I'm inclined to believe that them being anger prone is in many ways just as much out of their control as me not being anger prone. I'd like to believe that it was a conscious choice, but the reality is that it's been near impossible to spark my temper since before I was old enough to comprehend what anger was. The same goes for enthusiasm in general.

Sure, animals can get angry too. I think the difference is that the triggers for that anger are a bit more predictable and easier to manage. With a dog, for example, don't stick your hand between the dog and its food. That is a trigger, and will cause it to become angry in anticipation of having to potentially defend its food. With a person, individual thought process can also be a trigger. Someone can become angry simply by having a mind in which things like a phone a phone call are triggering because they perceive it to be a threat. Maybe it's debt collectors, maybe it's someone you just don't feel like talking to, or maybe it's just interfering with trying to watch T.V., and thus has symbolic similarities with the hand getting in front of the dog trying to eat the food and we just haven't spent enough time in modern civilization to have evolved a response more suitable than anger.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Do we really know how the plain dwellers, and hunter gatherers behaved on a day to day bases? To think all was calm and peace is quite an assumption.

 

[ledboots]

Well, I've always thought if I'd lived in the past I probably would have died very young by walking off a cliff, or towards a mountain lion: my vision is so bad without glasses. Or would have likely died later in childbirth if I had survived the eyesight thing.

It would be really interesting to have a time machine to check out what it was like in to live day to day in different eras.

 

[yakherder]

Do we really know how the plain dwellers, and hunter gatherers behaved on a day to day bases? To think all was calm and peace is quite an assumption.

We don't know, but we have a lot of clues.

Chimps, for example, though often thought of as impatient and aggressive in the environments in which they have been studied, have been shown to be less so in a more natural environment (though what I would define as a natural environment is increasingly nonexistent). Bonobos, as closely related to us or perhaps even more so than chimps, are quite nonconfrontational under normal circumstances.

We can also get clues from various tribes that have been studied though, like the above mentioned primates, finding societies that have not been tainted by the world around them is increasingly difficult.

I've always suggested the book "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha for those interested in the topic. Though the book is most specifically about sexual evolution, the data covers many other aspects of our theoretical progression from pre civilization to modern times and I believe does a very thorough job of discussing the available data without taking any crazy leaps of faith.

 

[Blobbenstein]

well, I meant the early humans, rather than the preceding chimp-like ancestors, but they probably were more grounded as people who live more basically, have to be, I suppose.

 

[das_nut]

From what I can tell on sports and music boards I've posted on, immaturity, arrogance, and dishonesty are problems many people have. My own experience tells me anger problems as well. All big turn-offs to me. It's possible early humans had anger problems, but with their much less sophisticated language the other problems are less likely. Modern language has its advantages but I'd say the drawbacks are greater. I have a feeling I would find early humans much more likeable than modern humans and language is a big factor. Does anyone feel this way?

How does having no language prevent Zog from burying an axe in Ug's skull when Ug doesn't share his kill?

 

[Clueless Git]

Does anyone feel this way?

Having some experience with modern day Neanderthals ..

When primal grunts fail to ellicit the desired response a fist in the face is a perfectly normal form of communication.

For that reason I lean towards a wider vocabulary being somewhat more preferable.

 

[yakherder]

How does having no language prevent Zog from burying an axe in Ug's skull when Ug doesn't share his kill?

Because pre agriculture society was likely egalitarian out of necessity and Zog would have been exiled, just as much a death sentence as the axe in the head. Without a reliance on minerals or even arable land, the group itself was the only resource.

 

[Clueless Git]

Because pre agriculture society was likely egalitarian out of necessity and Zog would have been exiled, just as much a death sentence as the axe in the head. Without a reliance on minerals or even arable land, the group itself was the only resource.

Technicaly Zog would have increased his own value in the group by bringing about Ug's demise?

 

[beancounter]

Technicaly Zog would have increased his own value in the group by bringing about Ug's demise?

Unless Ug had some unique skill he brought to the group.

 

[Clueless Git]

Unless Ug had some unique skill he brought to the group.

Ug's unique skill wasn't dodging axes.

 

[FortyTwo]

Ooh, capitalism versus communism?

Keep going. I want to see this through.

 

[yakherder]

Different context though. My utopian egalitarian caveman society is obsolete in the scarce resource dependent modern world.

 

[Dropkick]

Before I paste someone up side the head, I find yelling "Have at thee varlet!" to be much more sophisticated and friendlier sounding than my old cry of "Eat this you f*cking a**wipe!"

 

[das_nut]

Because pre agriculture society was likely egalitarian out of necessity and Zog would have been exiled, just as much a death sentence as the axe in the head. Without a reliance on minerals or even arable land, the group itself was the only resource.

Why would you say that?

Assuming that chimps don't have language as we'd define it for the purpose of this article, their chance of violent death are remarkably similar to subsistence-level hunter-agriculturalists. That's pretty remarkable, considering that chimps don't have those nifty tools that make killing much easier.

 

[yakherder]

The problem is that the studies do not provide an accurate depiction of the societies in question, and that goes for both chimps and pre-civilization humans.

Studying chimps in their natural environment is nearly impossible, so they'll do things like put food out in specific areas at regular feeding intervals, wait for the chimps to show up, and then when they fight over it use that as evidence that chimps are a violent species. This wouldn't have been acceptable in 4th grade science, but for some reason the scientific community jumps all over it.

The same thing happens with humans. The article you linked references studies on groups of humans who practice farming. Primitive though they may be by our standards, the whole point of the larger debate is that resource based civilization is what necessitated the need for violence as a survival mechanism. If they're planting seeds, they have tied themselves to a specific geographical location that must be defended or can be taken from someone else. They are, in that regards, modern, not nomadic. More later when I get home, I'm on the road and don't have my references with me.